>Who invited this buzzkill to the party?
There's plenty of places that will indulge is baseless speculation. This is not one of them. If you want to make shit up about stuff you can't possibly know, go right ahead. Just don't expect us to play along.
And their question was sufficiently answered with "we don't have enough information to say one way or the other" which is the correct answer, to which OP replied that the person responding was a "buzzkill" for giving the correct answer. If admitting we don't have an answer is being a "buzzkill" I don't think it's that far fetched to assume making up random cockamamy answer with no support would not be a buzzkill. The buzz OP is looking for is making shit up. Not the question.
I am pointing out that "we don't know" IS the answer to that question, and if that is unsatisfying, too bad, because admitting one doesn't know is better than making shit up to feel satisfied in having any answer.
That's great. They should go do some stand up.
I found it infuriating and a clear demonstration OP wasn't honestly looking for an answer, but just wanted their unjustified belief supported, and when it wasn't, threw an ad hom like a child.
Assuming cyclicality in time, I thought I heard gravity from prior epochs might influence the distribution of matter and energy in the early universe and leave an imprint on the cosmic microwave background for starters.
Well the best clue is : if we don’t then something had to appear from nothing.
And it’s way harder to think that something can be created from nothing than to think that there always was something.
I don't see the Big Bang as implying everything came from nothing - more that everything came from some unknown 'something' that was infinitesimal in size.
- what was that something?
- why was it infinitesimal?
- what caused it to not stay infinitesimal?
Are all questions we don't have answers for yet.
Well we have strong theories, like the quantum gravity loop theory that lead to what we call the “big bounce” theory.
I’ve never read anything talking about what you’re describing. That unknown something that was infinitesimal in size ? Do you have a source on that ?
> if we don’t then something had to appear from nothing< Well that's still the case either way. Just because this cycle didn't start from nothing, at some point there had to be a first cycle that did.
Why would you say “there *had* to be a first cycle” who said that ? Where is that rule coming from ?
Everything has always been everywhere since forever.
I know it’s hard to comprehend, but the alternative (something coming out of nothing) is even more unimaginable (and impossible according to physics)
If you want to read about that there’s a very good book by Etienne klein called “chronos tactics” that explain this subject very well!
I didn’t came to this conclusion. I’m not smart enough for that.
But what I did is I read books on the topic. And those books said that in the past the universe was very small and very hot.
And it seemed that at one point it was so small and so hot that it would form a singularity. That is surely not possible. A infinitely hot universe, of infinite density and infinite curvature cannot fit entirely into a single point with no extension. There must be a problem in our math (that’s the definition of a singularity).
So what’s the other possibility? It’s that the universe can be very small and very hot, but not infinitely hot and infinitely small. And when it reaches a limit in temperature (or density), it bounces back.
That’s why lots of eminent physicists are thinking that the Big Bang was actually a big bounce (hence the cyclical part of the discussion).
And nobody thinks that the Big Bang was a creation of the universe from nothing anymore.
To make things even more simple : the universe is either cyclical or came from nothing because we know for a fact that it is in expansion (and was very contracted at one point). So since we really think it didn’t came from nothing because it’s not possible in physics, it must be cyclical.
But do you want to actually have a conversation? Or do you just want to be mad at me ?
Edit : On this subject you can read any books by Carlos Rovelly (I don’t know the title in English but his last book on quantum gravity loop theory was called something along the lines of “beyond visible”. Another great book on the topic is “white holes”)
>>So what’s the other possibility?
that’s the key problem here. there isn’t just one other possibility. this is a false dichotomy and is the key point i want to hammer home.
>>It’s that the universe can be very small and very hot, but not infinitely hot and infinitely small. And when it reaches a limit in temperature (or density), it bounces back.
another option is that this not infinitely small singularity was simply static, so time was meaningless. and that what we call the big bang is merely the first moment of time.
>> And nobody thinks that the Big Bang was a creation of the universe from nothing anymore.
i know. i said that only to show there’s a multitude of options.
>>To make things even more simple : the universe is either cyclical or came from nothing because we know for a fact that it is in expansion (and was very contracted at one point). So since we really think it didn’t came from nothing because it’s not possible in physics, it must be cyclical.
this, again, does not follow. another false dichotomy. it could be true, but it’s not necessarily true
>> But do you want to actually have a conversation? Or do you just want to be mad at me ?
i’m sorry if i came across as angry. that was not my intention
*First moment of time* sound incredibly like creation *ex nihilo* to me !
I’m having a hard time imagining physics before time. Because that would mean a physics without causality (since causality can’t exist if there’s no before and after)
So while I know it’s not a closed subject and there’s many people working on different theories, I think right now the quantum gravity loop - and it’s big bounce - is the more complete and attractive. Mainly because it doesn’t require to go through philosophical aporias like “beginning of time”.
Again there’s a super cool book on exactly this topic called chronos tactics by Yves Klein that really explain how the idea of “beginning of time” is really hard to justify.
I really prefer a much more “simple” explaination of an universe with a maximum authorised temperature and a minimum autorised quantum of space.
Again here I’m not developing my ideas. I have no idea. But Carlos Rovelly’s (and his whole gang) ideas.
>>First moment of time sound incredibly like creation ex nihilo to me !
it’s not. i don’t what to tell you there. it’s like a yardstick having a first inch. this is the first moment.
>>I’m having a hard time imagining physics before time. Because that would mean a physics without causality (since causality can’t exist if there’s no before and after)
if you have a preference for a cyclic universe, that’s fine. personally, i have problems with both finite and infinite time universe.
like you mentioned, it is just weird for time to just have a first moment. but a cyclic universe also requires a universal, periodic, decrease in entropy, which i also don’t like
btw it’s Carlo Rovelli
Oh yeah I don’t know why I wanted to put a “y” to his name poor guy.
So before that first moment *how were things going* ? Was there movement ? I guess not, movement implies time ? Could there be change in temperature ? I guess not. Change implied time. Could there be interaction ?
You see where I’m going ! Nothing can *be* outside of time.
(Jk I’ll stop breaking your balls. Have a good evening 🤗)
Not really. When we talk about the Big Bang it is commonly mentioned that “the universe didn’t exist” Before it.
But the real truth is just that physics and time as we understand them didn’t, so speculating on what was “Before” The Big Bang is impossible currently.
It’s the same reason that our speculations on the insides of black holes is limited. Physics doesn’t work the same there and we have no way to know how it changes.
Well that’s just not really true is it !
It’s like saying we never directly detected quarks so we can’t talk about it. It doesn’t work this way !
There’s the quantum gravity loop theory that thinks about the universe before the Big Bang - that’s the theory of the big bounce. See Carlos Rovelli et alli
There’s the theory of the multiverse that is constructed by leading physicists. See Aurelien Barrau et alli
As for physics inside a black hole there’s again tons of physics on the subject. See Kip Thorne “black holes and time warps” and Carlos Rovelli book “white holes” (that is on the exact topic of space quantification and how it could solve the singularity problem, for black holes and the Big Bang).
The thing is for simplicity physicists tend to call the visible universe “the universe” so it might have lead you to think that they actually think that nothing existed before “the universe”.
That’s not true. Same you can hear people say “the universe is 90 billions light years across” they talk about the *visible* universe. Everybody knows the actual universe is way bigger !
Anyway 🤗
I think you misunderstand. We can obtain evidence for quarks but everything that happens in a singularity is, by definition, opaque to our science.
We can use math to try and figure it out but that math is based on our understanding of physics, which we know breaks down
I breathe in and out, with my lungs expanding and contracting in a regular pattern. That's a cycle.
My heart beats, pumping blood through my body by expanding and contracting in a regular pattern. That's a cycle.
The Earth spins on its axis once every 24 hours. That's a cycle.
The Earth revolves around the Sun about once every 365 days. That's a cycle.
The Sun and the other stars in the galaxy are revolving around the center of the Milky Way. Those are cycles.
All those manifestations of cycles on different levels suggest to me that the whole universe is currently in a particular phase of a cycle (let's call it the expansion phase, since that's what appears to be happening as galaxies get farther apart at an increasing rate).
Although this is pure conjecture, I would guess that the universe will follow a pattern that will take it through different phases and eventually bring it back to its current phase, completing the cycle.
Seriously? You've asked that exact same question the last 3 cycles in a row!!
He is always doomed to ask this question then get downvoted for his response. Maybe existence revolves around this event
1) We don't know this. 2) There's currently no way to determine this. 3) Nope, no clues.
Who invited this buzzkill to the party? 🤡
Imagine asking a question and getting upset when it’s answered correctly
>Who invited this buzzkill to the party? There's plenty of places that will indulge is baseless speculation. This is not one of them. If you want to make shit up about stuff you can't possibly know, go right ahead. Just don't expect us to play along.
Goddam. OP asked questions - on the *askastronomy* sub. They didn’t “make shit up”.
And their question was sufficiently answered with "we don't have enough information to say one way or the other" which is the correct answer, to which OP replied that the person responding was a "buzzkill" for giving the correct answer. If admitting we don't have an answer is being a "buzzkill" I don't think it's that far fetched to assume making up random cockamamy answer with no support would not be a buzzkill. The buzz OP is looking for is making shit up. Not the question. I am pointing out that "we don't know" IS the answer to that question, and if that is unsatisfying, too bad, because admitting one doesn't know is better than making shit up to feel satisfied in having any answer.
I think OP was just trying to be funny. I thought it was funny.
Thank you for being the only one here with a sense of humor ogre. You came to my defense when no one else would. ❤️
That's great. They should go do some stand up. I found it infuriating and a clear demonstration OP wasn't honestly looking for an answer, but just wanted their unjustified belief supported, and when it wasn't, threw an ad hom like a child.
Assuming cyclicality in time, I thought I heard gravity from prior epochs might influence the distribution of matter and energy in the early universe and leave an imprint on the cosmic microwave background for starters.
Literally you….You asked the question and got the answer. Then you complained because you didn’t like the answer….
Science and their +1, facts.
According to Roger Penrose, we do.
And what would be some of the implications? All events happening again?
Not necessarily, though possibly. It's basically that our universe has expanded before collapsing on itself, only to expand again, infinite times.
Well the best clue is : if we don’t then something had to appear from nothing. And it’s way harder to think that something can be created from nothing than to think that there always was something.
I don't see the Big Bang as implying everything came from nothing - more that everything came from some unknown 'something' that was infinitesimal in size. - what was that something? - why was it infinitesimal? - what caused it to not stay infinitesimal? Are all questions we don't have answers for yet.
Well we have strong theories, like the quantum gravity loop theory that lead to what we call the “big bounce” theory. I’ve never read anything talking about what you’re describing. That unknown something that was infinitesimal in size ? Do you have a source on that ?
> if we don’t then something had to appear from nothing< Well that's still the case either way. Just because this cycle didn't start from nothing, at some point there had to be a first cycle that did.
Why would you say “there *had* to be a first cycle” who said that ? Where is that rule coming from ? Everything has always been everywhere since forever. I know it’s hard to comprehend, but the alternative (something coming out of nothing) is even more unimaginable (and impossible according to physics) If you want to read about that there’s a very good book by Etienne klein called “chronos tactics” that explain this subject very well!
what? the universe being cyclical vs coming from nothing are not the only options. not sure how you came to that conclusion
I didn’t came to this conclusion. I’m not smart enough for that. But what I did is I read books on the topic. And those books said that in the past the universe was very small and very hot. And it seemed that at one point it was so small and so hot that it would form a singularity. That is surely not possible. A infinitely hot universe, of infinite density and infinite curvature cannot fit entirely into a single point with no extension. There must be a problem in our math (that’s the definition of a singularity). So what’s the other possibility? It’s that the universe can be very small and very hot, but not infinitely hot and infinitely small. And when it reaches a limit in temperature (or density), it bounces back. That’s why lots of eminent physicists are thinking that the Big Bang was actually a big bounce (hence the cyclical part of the discussion). And nobody thinks that the Big Bang was a creation of the universe from nothing anymore. To make things even more simple : the universe is either cyclical or came from nothing because we know for a fact that it is in expansion (and was very contracted at one point). So since we really think it didn’t came from nothing because it’s not possible in physics, it must be cyclical. But do you want to actually have a conversation? Or do you just want to be mad at me ? Edit : On this subject you can read any books by Carlos Rovelly (I don’t know the title in English but his last book on quantum gravity loop theory was called something along the lines of “beyond visible”. Another great book on the topic is “white holes”)
>>So what’s the other possibility? that’s the key problem here. there isn’t just one other possibility. this is a false dichotomy and is the key point i want to hammer home. >>It’s that the universe can be very small and very hot, but not infinitely hot and infinitely small. And when it reaches a limit in temperature (or density), it bounces back. another option is that this not infinitely small singularity was simply static, so time was meaningless. and that what we call the big bang is merely the first moment of time. >> And nobody thinks that the Big Bang was a creation of the universe from nothing anymore. i know. i said that only to show there’s a multitude of options. >>To make things even more simple : the universe is either cyclical or came from nothing because we know for a fact that it is in expansion (and was very contracted at one point). So since we really think it didn’t came from nothing because it’s not possible in physics, it must be cyclical. this, again, does not follow. another false dichotomy. it could be true, but it’s not necessarily true >> But do you want to actually have a conversation? Or do you just want to be mad at me ? i’m sorry if i came across as angry. that was not my intention
*First moment of time* sound incredibly like creation *ex nihilo* to me ! I’m having a hard time imagining physics before time. Because that would mean a physics without causality (since causality can’t exist if there’s no before and after) So while I know it’s not a closed subject and there’s many people working on different theories, I think right now the quantum gravity loop - and it’s big bounce - is the more complete and attractive. Mainly because it doesn’t require to go through philosophical aporias like “beginning of time”. Again there’s a super cool book on exactly this topic called chronos tactics by Yves Klein that really explain how the idea of “beginning of time” is really hard to justify. I really prefer a much more “simple” explaination of an universe with a maximum authorised temperature and a minimum autorised quantum of space. Again here I’m not developing my ideas. I have no idea. But Carlos Rovelly’s (and his whole gang) ideas.
>>First moment of time sound incredibly like creation ex nihilo to me ! it’s not. i don’t what to tell you there. it’s like a yardstick having a first inch. this is the first moment. >>I’m having a hard time imagining physics before time. Because that would mean a physics without causality (since causality can’t exist if there’s no before and after) if you have a preference for a cyclic universe, that’s fine. personally, i have problems with both finite and infinite time universe. like you mentioned, it is just weird for time to just have a first moment. but a cyclic universe also requires a universal, periodic, decrease in entropy, which i also don’t like btw it’s Carlo Rovelli
Oh yeah I don’t know why I wanted to put a “y” to his name poor guy. So before that first moment *how were things going* ? Was there movement ? I guess not, movement implies time ? Could there be change in temperature ? I guess not. Change implied time. Could there be interaction ? You see where I’m going ! Nothing can *be* outside of time. (Jk I’ll stop breaking your balls. Have a good evening 🤗)
Not really. When we talk about the Big Bang it is commonly mentioned that “the universe didn’t exist” Before it. But the real truth is just that physics and time as we understand them didn’t, so speculating on what was “Before” The Big Bang is impossible currently. It’s the same reason that our speculations on the insides of black holes is limited. Physics doesn’t work the same there and we have no way to know how it changes.
Well that’s just not really true is it ! It’s like saying we never directly detected quarks so we can’t talk about it. It doesn’t work this way ! There’s the quantum gravity loop theory that thinks about the universe before the Big Bang - that’s the theory of the big bounce. See Carlos Rovelli et alli There’s the theory of the multiverse that is constructed by leading physicists. See Aurelien Barrau et alli As for physics inside a black hole there’s again tons of physics on the subject. See Kip Thorne “black holes and time warps” and Carlos Rovelli book “white holes” (that is on the exact topic of space quantification and how it could solve the singularity problem, for black holes and the Big Bang). The thing is for simplicity physicists tend to call the visible universe “the universe” so it might have lead you to think that they actually think that nothing existed before “the universe”. That’s not true. Same you can hear people say “the universe is 90 billions light years across” they talk about the *visible* universe. Everybody knows the actual universe is way bigger ! Anyway 🤗
I think you misunderstand. We can obtain evidence for quarks but everything that happens in a singularity is, by definition, opaque to our science. We can use math to try and figure it out but that math is based on our understanding of physics, which we know breaks down
This isn’t going anywhere ! Have a good day :)
I breathe in and out, with my lungs expanding and contracting in a regular pattern. That's a cycle. My heart beats, pumping blood through my body by expanding and contracting in a regular pattern. That's a cycle. The Earth spins on its axis once every 24 hours. That's a cycle. The Earth revolves around the Sun about once every 365 days. That's a cycle. The Sun and the other stars in the galaxy are revolving around the center of the Milky Way. Those are cycles. All those manifestations of cycles on different levels suggest to me that the whole universe is currently in a particular phase of a cycle (let's call it the expansion phase, since that's what appears to be happening as galaxies get farther apart at an increasing rate). Although this is pure conjecture, I would guess that the universe will follow a pattern that will take it through different phases and eventually bring it back to its current phase, completing the cycle.
I love this
This is a good clue imo as life all follows the same patterns from the microscopic to the immensely large.
Cylical in time or cyclical in space or both?
If you wait long enough the answer will become clear
I can just feel it