The Big Bang Theory

[X-ray]

No, I'm not talking about my ex girlfriend here...

The basic premise of the BBT (as I understand it) is that in the beginning all the matter and energy that makes up the universe today was concentrated into a very small space. Some people call this a 'singularity'. There was an explosion eminating from this singularity and all the constituents expanded outwards in all directions from that point, and over a period of time (and with the influence of mechanisms I do not want to debate here) the universe as we know it evolved from those constituents.

Anyway, without getting into any mathematics and formulae, and just applying basic reasoning (because I myself am a basic individual  :-D ) I would like to know where the original singularity came from.

Because to me, specifying that all the constituents of our universe were happily packaged in a little 'handgrenade' is just as difficult to explain as a massive factory made out of liquorice sticks, churning out stars and planets at will. My question is unchanged if someone asserts that an almighty being created the universe, in that I want to know where that being came from.
I have a theory, but first I want to hear what you think about the BBT as it stands.

[X-ray]

But why do we have to model the problem with mathematics? The way I see it, there are only two ways in which the BBT can even be considered:

1) The grenade appeared out of nothing.
2) The grenade was always there and will always be there, only the distribution and configuration of its constituents changes.

I reject (1) because I can't accept something coming out of nothing.

I like (2), but only if it is a cycle. And then I have to conclude that the cycle can't be regarded as a single item in itself, otherwise we have infinite iterations and we don't get to the root of the problem. What I mean is, explaining where the cycle came from is going to be as difficult and analogous to explaining where the grenade came from, so an explanation of how the constituents were created within the cycle should satisfy us for the purpose of this question.

[X-ray]

@ Karlos

"... That is, there was no "before" the BB as time itself began then. Therefore the 'grenade' was always there..."


But does this mean that there was a finite starting point for this? Because if there was, then I have the same problem of getting something out of nothing. However, if there was not a finite starting point for this, then what was there at T minus 1 hour? In other words, unless we got the grenade from nothing, what was the state of play before the BB? How long had the grenade been sitting there? And if time was zero (in the case of the grenade not appearing out of nothing), then what was the precursor to starting the grenade's fuse?
I can't accept (understand) a linear progression of the universe, I can only understand a cyclic one.

[X-ray]

@ All

But that is what I have issues with: the flavour of the month. If there is a finite start, then we have something out of nothing, and I'm left scratching my head.

@ Cymric

I still have a problem (look, my maths and physics isn't like yours, so I look at things in terms of what I can explain in plain English): the quantum foam is SOMETHING, and to me it is just another handgrenade. As I said before, I don't want to speculate on the shape or configuration of the "thing" from which all this was created, I want to know where it came from. Whether someone says it is 'quantum foam' or 'liquorice sticks' is all the same to me. Even if all this came from a single atom, it is that atom's origin that I want to know about.

[X-ray]

@ Abou

That's part of my point. There will always be a 'before', and the only way I can comprehend it is if it is a cycle.

Edit: this link describes my view a bit better:

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm?ID=14

[X-ray]

@  Blobzie

You almost killed me with that post, I don't understand it. Is there something there that can explain how something can come from nothing? I'm sorry if it is already there, but I can't fathom it. I'm a genuine simple lad in many respects.

@ Bloodline

Yes, I agree that the existence of the universe requires time. It is for this reason that I can't accept that the constituents of our universe appeared out of nothing, together with time. That is like 0=1 to me.

Oh well, I'll just get a cup of coffee (because I can understand that fully, at least)

Edit: @ Blobzie, I am not trying to be a wise-arse, I respect your superior knowledge of these matters, but you lost me there and it's probably my fault.

[X-ray]

@ seer:

"...I think I just fell in love with blobsie..."

Hey, get in line  :-P


@ Blobzie

Aah, but that is where I take issue with your explanation, ma'am:

" (1) + (-1) = 0 "

The problem is, that your result of zero here is linear. It is a consequence of having something to begin with, and then taking it away. It does not explain how I can have nothing to begin with and then have 1.

Unless you are saying that the zero arrived at by adding a minus 1 to a plus 1 is not equivalent to nothingness, in which case that equation is not valid in my quest to explain how 1 can come from 0.

What I mean is, I think you are talking about a mathematical result of zero, whereas I am talking about an actual result of 0. (Nada. Zip. Zilch. Butkis. Nothing to be found. Not one negative, not one positive, no liquorice sticks, gods, foam, chavs, nothing anywhere at all)

[X-ray]

@ Blobzie

But...does the table exist?

Edit: what I mean is, it seems that I am being told a kind of balance theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but this scenario seems to be analogous to the one you have put forward:

A balance scale with no items on the platters sits at equillibrium. The platters are at the same level, there is nothing on them, and so we have a balanced resultant of zero. To me that is a genuine nothing. There is nothing on the platters, not on the +1 side, or the -1 side.

Next: we use (what I think) your theory must be analogous to:

I put lkg on one platter, and then another kg on the other platter. The 1 kg cancels the other one out, and the resultant is balanced platters. So the platters are in the same place as when they were empty, and the resultant is zero.

My problem is that someone looking at platter 1 sees a kg block there (even if it is on the +1 side, and if they look at the other platter they will see another kg block there, even if it is on the -1 side)

Do you see where my poor mind struggles with this?

[X-ray]

Aw, you replied faster than I could edit: please read my edit, Blobzie.

[X-ray]

@ Blobzie

"..By all accounts they were produced in equal amounts and they both cancelled out - but not quite..."


That's what I want to know: where did the +1 and -1 originally come from? From what were they 'produced' according to your understanding?

[X-ray]

Isn't she lovely?

[X-ray]

Now Blobzie, I have been thinking about the scales analogy.

My original problem was that I couldn't see how 1 could come from 0, and you have given me a balance theory that says that the 0 is actually a resultant of a mix of lots of -1s and lots of 1s. You hinted also that originally the number of minuses and pluses was equal, thus giving us a balanced zero, but that subsequently, one outweighed the other and the result was greater than zero (or less than, it's the same to me).

Now: consider, if you will, the previous example I gave you with the two scales. The scale that I understand as having 'nothing' is the one that is balanced and has no items on either platter. The other scale that is also balanced has items on each platter, of equal mass.

Now: if the item on the one platter manages to exceed in weight or quantity the item on the other platter, we have an imbalance and the scale tips in that direction (again, I don't mind if it tips negative or positive). Let's say it tips to the value of 2.
To all intents and purposes, an equally distributed weight that subsequently becomes 'heavier' on one side, is exactly the same as level empty platters, where a weight is added to only one side.

What I mean is, by my definition of 'nothing', the 0=1 problem still exists.

But by your explanation we still have a problem (I hate to use mathematics here, because I think a mathematical zero doesn't equal what 'nothing' is, but it is an equation  that best describes my logic to you):

[(1) + (-1)] + x = x

(where x cannot equal zero)

In other words, Blobzie, I'm still seeing a linear progresion of variables here. We start with nothing [(1) + (-1)], then we add x (which is the resultant constituents of the universe as we know it), and we are left with x, which is fine.

My question is not about the mathematical result of this equation, it is about where we got the x from to add to nothing, to be left with x.

I'm not arguing about what the value of x is, or whether it is positive or negative. My simple brain still sees 0=x or 0=1 and that is what I have trouble comprehending.

[X-ray]

@ Karlos

Good point, I should have said "where x mustn't equal zero" (I know, I prefer English and layman's logic, and I use that equation only to describe a verbal argument more concisely, not trying to find x).

I think you nailed down the problem in the tall building thread where you said I don't know anything about your C++ and you don't know about my raytracing. I'm sure the two of them can be used to produce the same image, but it is not possible for both of us to understand how. This communication gap is compounded by the fact that even those who are proficient in either field cannot produce the desired 'image' with 100% satisfaction.

It's a mini Tower of Babel

(actually, that works on a few levels too  :-) )

[X-ray]

@ Blobzie

Yup, I have no problem accepting negatives and positives, but that is just splitting up a question. Because I am still left asking where the table came from and where the gravity came from, and why one should overtake the other in magnitude.

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

"Did it fu..."

 :lol:

@ Karlos

I must again display my ignorance publicly: who is Old Rutger and who is Harrison (with regards to the Mars Bar?)