TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Beyond Big Bang ?

What is there in the borderline of non-existing and existence ? It has been previously taught that "TIME" was a product of Bigbang but there are recent theories suggesting that existence of time with a different density "Before" the big bang. if it is so, what is there before the big bang ? and even if there is the endless loop of big bangs, expansions and collapses, how does it all began ? any ideas ? theories ? imaginations ?

+1
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    Jun 2 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0 Lawrence Krauss discussing something from nothing
    • thumb
      Jun 3 2012: Richard Dawkins introduces Lawrence Krauss and that is all I needed to see to realize it is going to be a video worthy of watching. thank you for sharing dear Stewart. I am watching it right now and I will be back to you soon.
  • thumb
    Jun 2 2012: This problem will be unsolved. We won't get away beyond of our spacetime, because our existence will lose meaning. We exist in some place in space and time. If beyond space is nothing and we enter into "out-space", this "out-space" won't be empty, "out-space" will become space.
    • thumb
      Jun 2 2012: I think there is hope to have some answers someday. we know things we could never think of a few hundred years ago ... your reply reminds me of another big mystery that if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into ?
      • thumb
        Jun 2 2012: we expand into what the universe creates, beyond the universe there is theorised to be nothing, and so when we exapnd we are creating what we expand into
      • thumb
        Jun 3 2012: The universe could be finite and shrinking -edit- while it maintains the same size -edit- (like an increasing vacuum), it would look the same to us and science.
        -Edit- Red shift would be observable for i forgot to mention the fixed size idea.
        Thank you Stewart.
        -Second edit-The fixed size could be related to the limitation due to lightspeed, so this would not necessarily need a size fixed universe.
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2012: how does that explain the red light shift? Also if it was shrinking things wouldn't be getting farther away from us
  • thumb
    Jun 3 2012: This is a question for the physicists or cosmologists.
    I note that for many of us, getting our head around the concepts is difficult.
    I note even the big bang theory is relatively new.
    Given it is estimated to have happened about 13+ billion years ago we probably won't know in our life times. Although we can look back in time via hubble etc not sure if we can work out the "before". It is a big challenge.
    Check out the book a universe from nothing if you have not already.
    • thumb
      Jun 18 2012: Thank you for the book suggestion. I am going to check it out ... the name is very appealing.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jun 3 2012: Dear Eric,
      Thank you for your reply. the universe is expanding but that does not mean that there is no state of "nothingness" and everything exists, in fact universe is expanding into "something" that may be nothing. and when the universe is expanding the amount of matter anti matter and dark energy is not increasing it is just decreasing in density. so the question of how non-existing becomes existing still remains.

      This is what I also like about TED allowing people from different cultures and backgrounds to communicate beyond the limits of geographical borders, politics and ethnicity. minds are all that count and nothing else. that is why I found your whole second paragraph absolutely irrelevant.

      Best Regards.
  • thumb
    Jun 3 2012: The big bang isn't a fact, so why cling on to it and limit the possibilities?
    • thumb
      Jun 3 2012: I understand that Big Bang is only a theory and in fact one that is said to have the possibility of one billionth. what are the other alternatives that could explain what we know so far ? and no matter what theory we come up with we always face the problem of how the existence came to existence in the first place.
      • thumb
        Jun 3 2012: I didn't know of a probalility calculation on the big bang and don't think it's parameters are to be found anywhere near reality.
        The question you oppose (what are the other alternatives that could explain what we know so far?) would be the appropriate setting of mind in general.
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2012: actually theories explain laws such as relativity and gravity etc, and I agree with you that yes the universe could have been created, then collapsed etc etc, I should have worded it more like, "the big bang deals with what happened after a stable version of matter was created" and when you say bacteria are facts I know that and I think we've different meaning of theory, when scientists use theory they mean it's a fact or as close to a fact as we currently have, It's like the age old creationist argument "evolution is just a theory" a scientific theory explains facts and observations and then in itself becomes a fact
      • thumb
        Jun 3 2012: You've hit a fallacy here, "it's only a theory" A theory is the highest honor an idea can get, hence that's why gravity and germs are both theories. I'm i no way a physicist but I do know some stuff, the rapid expansion suggests we all came from one point, and background radiation and the total energy in the universe all point towards a single beginning. Now the big bang doesn't deal with how the universe started, it deals with what happened immediately after, and the only other theories I know of are steady state theory and then all religious ideas.
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2012: which part is false ? Bigbang is only a theory means it is a theory and theory it in fact is. if you are referring to the word "only", it is used because even with the 4 solid clues out there that defend the big bang they calculate its possibility to one billionth. google it.
          second misconception of yours in this reply is that you think big bang happened immediately after creation of universe. that my friend we have no clue of. in fact there may have been a series of big bangs, creation of universes and then collapses. and this is another "only a" theory.
          a theory is not the highest honor an idea can get. the highest honor is when ideas turn out to be "Facts" (Laws). theories are not disproved by experimental science and one day that may happen. regarding your examples, as far as I know gravity is also accepted to be the "LAW" of gravity in many scientific communities and not a theory (although some still do believe it is) and germs are "facts" because they can now be observed directly with microscope.Big bang is still only a theory albeit a widely accepted one. I too based my question on its possibility.
          thank you for your reply, this is enriching the content of the conversation although it is becoming slightly irrelevant to the target of the main question.
  • thumb
    Jun 2 2012: Why would you think there would be only one universe?

    I think you have to think about this stuff outside of the box. You cannot use this universe ideas to understand or describe something outside of this universe. Time is peculiar to a universe where there is movement of particles as time by definition...

    I buy into the we are all fallen gods(some more than others) theory and that all you see is a result of agreed upon decision also know as reality.