Science can’t prove the Universe before the Big Bang because Einstein’s theories break down, just like Einstein’s theories break down inside of a black hole.
So, is space-time before our Universe, simply a f*cking philosphy? Science proves it being a philosophy and science.
We dont know if their probes came here, or they have tools to evaluate planets, but then they would have to choose one, maybe two, because why would you need more for survival? It would be great task already for one colony.
With such low level technology as we possess it would take them a lot of time, even assuming the spaceships will not break with time. Longer something stays in space, higher probability it will stop function, but faster something goes, less time elapses for a spaceship, so they would wait with expansion untill really at the peak of their technology and at the same time there would be some urgency to spread around.
Assuming that for some reason the civilisation wants to spread, we dont know the reasons why would they want to go to different planet. The reason may be, and that is entirely speculation on my part, that their planet is already unfit for them, or will become in short time, and they must to do that for their civilization to survive. In such case the size of civilization could be expanded to ONE only more planet, closest available, with technology assuring it, and that would be enough, steady transfer to only one point, in a few thousands of years, or millions. Maybe to TWO planets for a spare colony if the technology doesnt assure it would be the case. The energy needed for producing many, many more would not be available in one planet, in one star system. Each of that colony would have a chance to fail and the civilizations can be reduced to low tech ones, even if the expansion was succesfull, that was for a long time the case in EVE online world, when EVE gate collapsed and many distant colonies were left without proper technology to function, they were not yet self sufficient enough to produce such interstellar spaceships on their own, they were too young and dependent on exchange too much. Imagine you get your ship to another island, ship have to be broken to make huts and tools, and the people who know how to build ships and materials for it were left on the other island, so you would need another ship to come with materials and people who know how to make it, and the next ship will not arrive. You can only build a raft from local materials and the next island is too far away to go there in such raft.
The technology used in colony would have to be canibalized from ship itself, so it would vanish in short time, if the civilization would need to produce in short time advanced tools used to make other advanced tools. Mining, excavating, factory building etc. shaping of the environment is energy consuming and material consuming. Building other ships may be too much early on, and not really needed, if they would have a paradise there at last.
Why would they be silent? The communication between such sparse colonies probably nonexistent in a form of question-answer, because could not be seen as practical for living creatures. With signals coming years or thousands of years between each other, it would be not communication with intent of obraining information, but only sending it, broadcasting signals that dont have to ever be answered. It could serve only as documentary report about state of things, for everyone to hear, like with our probe we sent to space with golden disk.
If one field interacts with another you can record it, so the event you can describe as a particle, while it is not a particle at all, but a wave in its form, and interaction of fields is what can be real. Imagine particles do not exist, only interaction between fields. Physics as science developed as we entered this world with our minds is not what truly is there, and we see the generalized effect of fields. We dont see sand particles, we see fields interacting. These fields may be only one field with different properties actually. And it could be we shouldnt really differentiate between one another than just by some change detected in energy levels, a potential in one point of that unified field. Potential detected would be a particle for us now.
An interpretation that has its followers and opponents, both with good enough reasons. As a non-interested party - meaning I have no stakes in that discussion - I’ll wait for the necessary experimental evidence before accepting any conclusion. I already stated twice I was more in favor of the collapsing wave function argument.
First off, who says space-time existed before the BB ?! At the moment of the BB, at least according to that theory, there was no “space” and therefore no space-time.
Second, yes, attempting a discussion on whether or not what existed before the BB can be called a universe is “engaging in philosophy”, a philosophical discussion on what constitutes a universe. That is what I wrote in the previous post. And the rest, as they say, is semantics.
If one field interacts with another you can record it, so the event you can describe as a particle, while it is not a particle at all, but a wave in its form, and interaction of fields is what can be real.
So, would fields prior to the Big Bang, be particles or waves seeing as both need gravity to exist?
Has anyone been close enough to a black hole to test the theory?
It should be clear that in the absence of a body space time is less “bent” and travelling from point a to b would be easier. Now if we put a body such as a black hole in the same location then that a to b point becomes longer, space and time would be bending around the body.
It should also be clear to you that humanity has not yet fully understood black holes so your question is quite silly.
From what I can understand about the theory is that say if we have 2 identical sets of points (a to b x 2) and on one a to b we put a black hole there and the other a to b there was no black hole. So both sets of a to b would still be the same distance but the a to b with the black hole has “stretched” space.
So if 2 vehicles travelled both A to B’s at the same time I believe the vehicle travelling the a to b without the black hole would see the vehicle in the a to b with the black hole travelling in slow motion.
This does baffle me somewhat and I get confused with mass and how it affects the space around it,
No, its called empirical evidence that can be tested to achieve the same results over and over again with the same input data used every time.
It should be clear that in the absence of a body space time is less “bent”
Without a single celestial body in space prior to the Big Bang, the waves of space-time should be smoother than a glass lake that would allow FTL velocities to be achieved.
“Here” and “There” didn’t exist prior to the big bang, if “Here” and "There"did exist then it would have been so small that humans couldn’t measure it, according to accepted theories the entire universe was a tiny point which expanded.
I Imagine whatever was here before the big bang was like a formatted Digital storage device ready to have it’s operating system installed upon it. Space and time was somehow unfolded into this storage area. I’m not sure if we can ever understand before the big bang and can only describe it as nothingness. In this universe we will always have “our” perspective and nothing else.
Light did not exist before the big bang, and lets say you had a spaceship that could go back in time to the big bang, what would you expect to see? Also what would be the ships relative point be? how could the ship determine how fast it’s travelling with no reference points? Light is the result of some sort of reaction whatever caused the reacition also didn’t exist.
Basically your concept of FTL before the big bang is utterly impossible.
You are wrong because you think “space” existed before the big bang, It did not, it was compressed into a tiny single point which expanded. The space you occupy now was compressed inside this singular point according to accepted theories.
Yes, the nothingness before the big bang was like a digital storage area and the tiny point which expanded is like a Zip file containing a self executing reality which is still “installing” itself today. LOL I just thought I’d write a little more about how I see it.
If this compression theory is true then how is it possible to fit the entire universe into a single tiny point? that’s some god-like compression. We can even take a kilogram of metal ourselves and try to compress it to occupy a small space and we wouldnt be very successful. There is definitely more at work than we can see.
Out of curiosity, have any of you read about the recent photographs of “early” galaxy formations taken with the JWT? Apparently the formations are not at all as expected, and resemble our own galaxy far too much - so much - that its challenging the whole “Big Bang” theory itself. Which BTW - There is the BIG BANG, BIG CRUNCH, and BIG FIZZLE… So you really need to broaden your viewpoits before necesarily assuming anyone is wrong based on things like theoritical physics.
Thanks in advance for your considerations…
and may the force be with you…
and oh yeah… they also discovered there is a outer “membrane” of sorts that envlops our entire solar system. I suppose you could liken it to as cellular wall. Now I’m not sure if thats mitosis or miosis, when soloar vehicles we develop penetrate the barrior! LOL And as for the habitable zone you also need a magnetosphere to hold water on the surface… its not just a matter of light and temperature - its having an atmosphere.
Any galaxy formation would have happened after the big bang. the “early” galaxy formation you mention was still after the big bang.
I read that the JWT found a dead galaxy that was present 700 million years after the big bang, it’s the oldest galaxy ever observed.
“Here” and “There” didn’t exist prior to the big bang, if “Here” and "There"did exist then it would have been so small that humans couldn’t measure it, according to accepted theories the entire universe was a tiny point which expanded.
There had to have been something prior to the Big Bang, otherwise our universe would never have been.
There could have been hundreds billions of small pockets of matter, like you suggested, that were spread across a relatively small area, 100,000 light years across. Matter would have had to still vibrate to create energy.
Perhaps the vibration of matter in close proximity to each other, caused each pocket to slowly move in an outward and spiralling direction until pockets started to collide that then added more and more mass.
Yes of course there was something, according to current theory the laws of physics that govern the universe were created at the time of the big bang. Whatever was here before is simply too many levels beyond our understanding.
We understand that we expanded into this “nothing” and are still expanding, I’m thinking what ever this nothing is surrounds the entire universe, if this is factual then we can also understand that the power/force involved in the big bang was extremly powerful if it is still expanding the universe 13.5 billion years later at beyond light speed.
What ever this “nothing” is it seems vast amounts of power are needed to push it aside so that the universe could be born and the laws of science/nature/physics can remain constant without disruption.
Or maybe the power prior to the Big Bang was as small as an ant but capable of lifting objects five to ten times its own weight.
Here’s an interesting question.
Could the Northern Lights represent what the curve of space-time would look like if space-time was able to be illuminated?
Yes. exactly. I’m trying to imagine something the size of a microbe that fits all of space within it and it’s just too much for me to comprehend the sheer amount of power bursting to get out and unfold.
As we know the northern lights is solar wind caught in earth’s magnetosphere field, but I get your point. It would be interesting to see a factual depiction of exactly how gravity affects space-time. It’s such an amazing concept to imagine the centre of the galaxy has bended the space near us and caused the Sun to have a determined course through space.
The Japanese mastered the art of sword making by hammering the steel then folding and then hammering again until there was at least 25 folds.
Perhaps space-time was the same prior to the Big Bang. Particles would fold over themselves, over and over again until many folds had been achieved.
I have seen few times the word infinity here.
If we assume the universe was an infinitely small point once, why wouldnt we also assume its actual age was infinite? One doesnt exclude the other. You could fit everything inside one point, you just need infinite amount of dimensions, from which only few you would notice, as a human, after expansion. Time would be change of dimensions relative to each other. This way the universe was never actually starting and will not end. It is only evolving, changing.
It looks like you are describing a form of compression, It would seem that quarks and hadrons are what makes up all of our reality once the components of protons and neutrons are broken down. If we look at digital file compression we can understand that a form of “compression dictionary” is used where a string of data can be represented by a smaller string of data.
It definitely appears that quarks and hadrons make up everything and I can also see the logic in everything existing as particles while in the compressed state before the big bang. Reality seems to have it’s own “compression dictionary”, after the big bang everything seemed to build itself automatically, gasses and matter were created, It seems exactly like I mentioned earlier a kind of “universe reality Zip file”
after the big bang everything seemed to build itself automatically
Not possible. There is always a blueprint of how particles go together. Particles cannot simply arrange theirself to whatever the particle wants to be because particles lack a conscious process to be able to construct.