Multiple Big Bangs

[whatabrother]

How did the very first atom come into existence? There couldn't be a "big bang" without some sort of matter or gas somewhere that could cause something like that to happen.

Who says that the universe has to have a start and an end? Who says that matter has to have an origin? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

As long as time exists, a beginning is impossible. To explain: Time works in a sequential order that cannot be changed. For each point in time, there is a point before, and a point after, which means that Time must continue infinitely into the past, and the future. A beginning would defy the very Idea of time, because a Beginning has no continuing pattern into the past. For me, this idea is impossible to understand. There is something unsettling about not being able to know the thing that caused everything to be the way it is; a beginning.

I think this might in part be due to Newton's law of Inertia. Out of an infinite number of points in time, the probability ought to be fairly high that all matter in the universe would at least once become inert. According to Newton's law, inert matter requires active force (which does not exist without active matter) to discontinue the matter's inertia. So theoretically, the probability that all matter in the universe would be motionless should be infinitely close to definite. Why is it then, that the universe remains active? The only possible explanation is that Newton's law is not completely accurate. There are really only two possible inaccuracies that I can think of. Either A.) Newton's law is not credible, or B.) There was one moment in time (a beginning), that was not subject to Newton's law.

Infinity (or negative infinity) is a tricky concept. Given an infinite number of trials, any probability greater than 0% becomes a definite outcome.

[thedotmaster]

^ Exactly.
Think about this: if you point two mirrors at each other and look at one of them you see lots and lots of mirrors (and yourselves) until eventually it either curves around out of view, or it becomes too small to see.
That is what it is like with time.
We can only see a finite distance and we cannot comprehend what it is like beyond that limit, where it goes out of view.

[whatabrother]

^ Exactly.
Think about this: if you point two mirrors at each other and look at one of them you see lots and lots of mirrors (and yourselves) until eventually it either curves around out of view, or it becomes too small to see.
That is what it is like with time.
We can only see a finite distance and we cannot comprehend what it is like beyond that limit, where it goes out of view.

but that is something that has a beginning and an end. It's the reflection of light from one mirror to the other. Without light there would be no reflection. With each reflection, the strength of the reflected light becomes weaker, and eventually there will not be enough light for any reflection at all.

[thedotmaster]

^ Exactly.
Think about this: if you point two mirrors at each other and look at one of them you see lots and lots of mirrors (and yourselves) until eventually it either curves around out of view, or it becomes too small to see.
That is what it is like with time.
We can only see a finite distance and we cannot comprehend what it is like beyond that limit, where it goes out of view.

but that is something that has a beginning and an end. It's the reflection of light from one mirror to the other. Without light there would be no reflection. With each reflection, the strength of the reflected light becomes weaker, and eventually there will not be enough light for any reflection at all.

No, it's like the half life of a radioactive substance. It keeps halving, but doesn't stop emitting ever.

[whatabrother]

No, it's like the half life of a radioactive substance. It keeps halving, but doesn't stop emitting ever.

If Photons are required for light to exist, and the number of photons present decreases at any rate less than 1, then the number of photons present will eventually be less than 1.


I am not a quantum physicist, but if the above statement is true, then the travel of light cannot continue forever because any number of photons less than 1 must not be a photon.

[eMpTy89]

If the laws of physic are correct space and time or Spacetime/Timespace is actually emptiness...and emptiness cannot stay empty...it must fill itself (explain why people seem to explode in space...its in fact quartering) so emptiness tried to fill itself out of nothing(itself) but it is also time so it tore itself into the opposite of a black hole(a time breach or something...know that this is a theory) and it attracted a(or more) star from the future and then the Big Bang...so the Universe(or Multiverse...but that's for some other post...) is a paradox...it as no beginning or end.

[i_fallenhero]

it is a concept that we will (atleast not in our lifetime) ever find a correct answer to, though there are many theories

[TheMindRapist]

it is a concept that we will (atleast not in our lifetime) ever find a correct answer to, though there are many theories

^ This is what not to do.
Do not post in a thread that is 2 weeks old, especially if you aren't adding anything to the discussion.
Yes, there are many theories, in fact, there are many theories about everything.
Yes, science is always advancing, so we may not understand something within our lifetime, in fact, we may never understand something completely.
It would have been better to post some of the different theories, and what thoughts they inspired in you.

[crash_sid]

i think this post will help you guys a bit..
when you ask 'were there multiple bigbangs?' expecting a 'yes' or 'no' answer,there is a basic flaw in the question itself.
the starting point of big bang as we call it singularity is an interesting phenomenon.at singularity our laws of physics breaks down due to its structure or in loose terms due to its high density.the forces that exists today like weak,strong,nuclear,electromagnetic didn't operated at singularity they were created nanoseconds after the big bang hence any information that could have existed before the big bang got destroyed at singularity,so we can not talk about any events prior to the big bang atleast in physics(now talking about things that could have no observable 'effects' won't be physics but guessing).no matter how hard we try we can never get any information about pre big bang era(ouch that hurts)...thats precisely why scientist assigned the big bang as the origin of time(any property such as ever increasing entropy that could be used to measure time could not be determined for pre big bang events).
so the answer to the 'multiple big bang' question would be that in physics we can not have this question since we can not answer it.... its best left to the realms of philosophy.
but we can talk about the big bang's existence,there are two very supporting proofs for it:-
1. everyone knows about the exapanding universe...hubble's observation....dopplers shift...etc
2. cosmic microwave background...which seems to come from all directions at same intensity and led to 2 nobel prizes...it explains a lot of things including the anisotropicity of our universe....the only possible explaination of this phenomenon is big bang....you can google about it to know more.

i would understand if you find my explanations lame ,but it is too huge a topic to explain in a post...i recommend that you should read books by 'stephen hawking' to know more

[Charlieace]

did anybody hear about that big bang replication in switzerland i think it was. they were trying to replicate one but an error occured (thank god). i don't think they should be screwing around with that, and if i hear about it again i'm going to raise hell.