the pre BB is defined as..

[north]

The standard BB model defines the pre-bigbang state as being... nothing... no energy, no matter, no space-time.

 

do all meanstreamers think this..

[Baby Astronaut]

The standard BB model defines the pre-bigbang state as being... nothing... no energy, no matter, no space-time.

 

do all meanstreamers think this..

I'm fairly certain established science thinks of the pre-Big Bang existence as unknown to us. Which is not the same as empty or nothingness.

 

There is currently no way to test or verify the information, far as I know. So anything you hear wouldn't even qualify as theory.

[Martin]

The standard BB model defines the pre-bigbang state as being... nothing... no energy, no matter, no space-time. ...

 

This is a false statement, north.

 

The classic model does not define any pre-BB state.

[allien]

Since it has singularity and high dencity we could assume Big Bang disc as black hole.

 

If we assume BB disc as Black hole, pre-BB state is compression proses.

 

Also standart explenation of BB is meaningless according to dencity (pressure) of the enviroment.

 

Even if protons were occured immidiately, they must be turned to neutrons because of high pressure.

 

When we assume BB expanded (uniformly) with light speed, we found that;

 

Time (sec.) ----- Radius(m)-----Dencity -------Composition

0 --------------- E-25 -------- E+130 ------- Unknown (Possibly Elementry Particle)

E-11 ------------ 3E-3 -------- E+62 ------- Unknown (Black Hole)

1 --------------- 3E+8 -------- E+29 ------- Unknown (Black Hole)

10 -------------- 3E+9 -------- E+26 ------- Unknown (Black Hole)

100 ------------- 3E+10 ------- E+23 ------- Quarks (Preon stars)

1000 ------------ 3E+11 ------- E+20 ------- Quarks

5000 ------------ 2E+12 ------- E+18 ------- Quarks (Quark stars)

10000 ----------- 3E+12 ------- E+17 ------- Neutron (Neutron stars)

100000 ---------- 3E+13 ------- E+14 ------- Proton (Stars)

 

Dencity(kg/m^3)

 

Proton is never observed or predicted in very high dencity environment because of degeneration pressure.

 

To say that universe occured at E-11 second, you must accept universe dencity as E+62 kg/m^3 and at this dencity main composition could not be proton. Because we assume neigligible amounth of proton in Neutron stars which has E+17 kg/m^3 average dencity.

[north]

Originally Posted by north

The standard BB model defines the pre-bigbang state as being... nothing... no energy, no matter, no space-time. ...

 

 

This is a false statement, north.

 

The classic model does not define any pre-BB state.

 

the classic model may not , but what about today

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Since it has singularity and high dencity we could assume Big Bang disc as black hole.

 

If we assume BB disc as Black hole, pre-BB state is compression proses.

 

Also standart explenation of BB is meaningless according to dencity (pressure) of the enviroment.

 

Even if protons were occured immidiately, they must be turned to neutrons because of high pressure.

 

When we assume BB expanded (uniformly) with light speed, we found that;

 

Time (sec.) ----- Radius(m)-----Dencity -------Composition

0 --------------- E-25 -------- E+130 ------- Unknown (Possibly Elementry Particle)

E-11 ------------ 3E-3 -------- E+62 ------- Unknown (Black Hole)

1 --------------- 3E+8 -------- E+29 ------- Unknown (Black Hole)

10 -------------- 3E+9 -------- E+26 ------- Unknown (Black Hole)

100 ------------- 3E+10 ------- E+23 ------- Quarks (Preon stars)

1000 ------------ 3E+11 ------- E+20 ------- Quarks

5000 ------------ 2E+12 ------- E+18 ------- Quarks (Quark stars)

10000 ----------- 3E+12 ------- E+17 ------- Neutron (Neutron stars)

100000 ---------- 3E+13 ------- E+14 ------- Proton (Stars)

 

Dencity(kg/m^3)

 

Proton is never observed or predicted in very high dencity environment because of degeneration pressure.

 

To say that universe occured at E-11 second, you must accept universe dencity as E+62 kg/m^3 and at this dencity main composition could not be proton. Because we assume neigligible amounth of proton in Neutron stars which has E+17 kg/m^3 average dencity.

 

I had this discussion on another site and they reject the Black-hole theory

 

what of before the BB though ?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

you guys haved moved my thread

 

interesting

 

from Cosmology to speculations

 

what do you fear ?

[mooeypoo]

It's not about fear, it's about your claims not being proven, and the discussion speaks of speculations.

 

This forum (Speculations) is not about a punishment limbo. It's the right place for speculating about things that are not proven.

 

Which is exactly what your claim is. There's nothing wrong with that, and these sometimes lead to valid theories that science may one day accept.

 

But not yet.

 

~moo

[north]

It's not about fear, it's about your claims not being proven, and the discussion speaks of speculations.

 

This forum (Speculations) is not about a punishment limbo. It's the right place for speculating about things that are not proven.

 

Which is exactly what your claim is. There's nothing wrong with that, and these sometimes lead to valid theories that science may one day accept.

 

But not yet.

 

~moo

 

what have I to prove then ?

[mooeypoo]

I am not sure what claim it is you're making..?

So far this is a discussion on what is or isn't possibly maybe was before perhaps the Big Bang.

 

What's the claim?

[north]

I am not sure what claim it is you're making..?

So far this is a discussion on what is or isn't possibly maybe was before perhaps the Big Bang.

 

What's the claim?

 

that there was before the BB

 

based on the infinity of something as opposed to nothing

 

and really in the end BB is an inadequate theory of the Universe because energy/matter to BB gets stuck at the begining of

 

but energy/matter has always been and always will be

 

when you reason it out

[mooeypoo]

Well that's what you need to prove.

 

At the very least, you need to provide some basic substantiation for this claim.

That's why it's in speculations. Go ahead and prove this is mainstream science, and your post will go back to the mainstream forum.

[allien]

I had this discussion on another site and they reject the Black-hole theory

 

what of before the BB though ?

 

 

you guys haved moved my thread

 

interesting

 

from Cosmology to speculations

 

what do you fear ?

 

The thing in the universe which is the most like BB disc is Black Hole.

When you evaulated BB with standart quantum model, you could refuse Black hole acception. But I do not take SQM as referance also.

 

I just wanted to show BB mechanism and composition also speculations even most of the scientist assumed them as true.

 

 

 

If you want to hear speculation, you could find them in my theory.

 

Universe was infinity volume at the begining. Particles which has infinity small mass are at rest. no motion and no force.

 

Disturbance caused to inequalty and motion and gravitional force occured. Motion (spin) caused them to be negative and positive elementry particles.

 

compression proses continue according to one center where the big bang occured.

 

unique elementry particle --> negative, positive elementry particle --> multi group of neutral elemnetry particles --> quarks (two type as positive and negative) --> neutroniums --> BB disc --> BB --> neutroniums --> neutron --> proton (anti proton) --> quarks (two type as positive and negative)--> electron (positron) --> photon (neutrino) --> multi group of neutral elemnetry particle -->

Infinity times later, unique elementry particles which are at rest will be occur again.

[doG]

The standard BB model defines the pre-bigbang state as being... nothing... no energy, no matter, no space-time.

 

IMO it is safe to assume that matter is neither created or destroyed so I believe matter has always existed and time is eternal. I think the Big Bang was an event in time that distributed existing matter into the Universe as we know it. We have no way to detect the state of anything prior to that event or anything beyond the horizon of that event so they are just unknowns to us.

[swansont]

IMO it is safe to assume that matter is neither created or destroyed so I believe matter has always existed and time is eternal. I think the Big Bang was an event in time that distributed existing matter into the Universe as we know it. We have no way to detect the state of anything prior to that event or anything beyond the horizon of that event so they are just unknowns to us.

 

This limitation on matter creation is demonstrably false. We do it all the time in particle/antiparticle pair production, and matter creation from antimatter has been observed in come CP-violation experiments.

 

Energy conservation stems from the continuous symmetry of the laws and constants of the universe. If this symmetry is broken, say at the BB, then all bets are off.

[doG]

Are you saying antimatter=nothing?

[allien]

Are you saying antimatter=nothing?

 

Or Are you saying (antimatter + matter) = nothing?

[swansont]

Energy can be converted into matter and antimatter, and antimatter can change into matter.

 

Thus, even with conservation of energy there is no conservation of matter. You can end with more than you started with.

[doG]

Energy can be converted into matter and antimatter, and antimatter can change into matter.

 

Thus, even with conservation of energy there is no conservation of matter. You can end with more than you started with.

 

So the Law of Conservation of Mass/Matter is false then? In a closed system, like the Universe, you can convert back and forth and end up with more than you started with?

[Sayonara]

There is no Law of Conservation of Matter - that is a common mistake. There is only conservation of energy.

[iNow]

There is no Law of Conservation of Matter - that is a common mistake. There is only conservation of energy.

 

Can you clarify? I've heard this before (something about it only applying in chemistry, but not physics), yet there are articles like the below, so I'm not sure which comment to accept.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

 

 

 

Also, to doG's post, do we really know if the universe is a closed system? I suppose semantically the universe means "all there is," but most often we mean the "observable universe" when we say that word, and I think there is a lot of reason to think there is something beyond the observable.

[Sayonara]

Can you clarify? I've heard this before (something about it only applying in chemistry, but not physics), yet there are articles like the below, so I'm not sure which comment to accept.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

 

From that article:

The law of "matter" conservation (in the sense of conservation of particles) may be considered as an approximate physical law that holds only in the classical sense before the advent of special relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

It works on the level of a shrink-wrapped bucket of bricks, as long as they are not approaching c or being teleported. On the level of the whole universe though I don't think it can be applied. Swansont will be able to confirm/correct.

[doG]

Swansont will be able to confirm/correct.

 

I wonder if he can confirm the concept of something, the Universe, from nothing. That is what my initial point was about, that it violates the laws of physics as we know them and we have no reason to believe they would ever break down, even at the BB.

[Martin]

The standard BB model defines the pre-bigbang state as being... nothing... no energy, no matter, no space-time.

 

Just so we don't lose track of the O.P. This statement is unfounded, and no links to online professional research have been offered in support.

Unless north retracts, I assume he continues to make this assertion without offering url. Could be against forum rules.

 

The issue with the original post is more one of groundless and misleading statement about the mainstream model, not speculation per se.

 

There has been plenty of speculative stuff in subsequent posts, and it is all to the good to have it discussed, but still not to forget the O.P. issue.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I wonder if he can confirm the concept of something, the Universe, from nothing...

 

Why should Swansont, or any scientist, want to confirm that concept? It is not part of the usual BB model.

 

Are you making the same mistake that north did in his initial post?

 

The conventional BB theory does not start with a pre-BB state of nothing.

If you claim that it does then you should offer evidence in the form of a contemporary research paper that gives the BB model with an initial pre-BB state.

 

If you are confused about this, please read A Tale of Two Big Bangs at Einstein Online. The link is in my sig. It will help straighten out some terminology.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Martin
Consecutive post/s merged.

[doG]

The conventional BB theory does not start with a pre-BB state of nothing.

If you claim that it does then you should offer evidence in the form of a contemporary research paper that gives the BB model with an initial pre-BB state.

 

Actually the opposite is my belief, that the Universe could not come from nothing according to the laws of physics as we know them. We have no evidence that any mass or energy could come from nothing and we know they had to come from somewhere because the Universe is full of both.

[Sayonara]

And yet the laws governing the universe only apply within the universe, so there is no reason to impose them on the origin of said universe. Claiming they can't be applied to the origin of the universe is approaching strawman.

[doG]

And yet the laws governing the universe only apply within the universe, so there is no reason to impose them on the origin of said universe. Claiming they can't be applied to the origin of the universe is approaching strawman.

 

Define the Universe and it's origin if it even had one. If, for instance, the Universe is cyclical would the beginning of the last cycle be the origin you refer to be THE origin or simply the beginning of the current cycle? And who's claiming they can't be applied? Iknow of no observable evidence that the laws which exist in the Universe as we know it ever breaking down or failing and we have no reason to believe the BB is an exception. Is there any reason at all that we should believe or even speculate that the mass and energy in our Universe came from nothing? IMO the fact that they exist at all is reason to believe they came from something.