Multiple Big Bangs

[novalyphe]

Ok, I am grabbing dimensions into this too, Just to make it more interesting...
And stick with me for a moment will ya?
It's recommended to view the following vids before reading the rest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o


Lets say we have laws of physics we know about.
And he have ones we don't know about.
Are laws of physics created when singularity happens?
And are other dimensions affected too?

The problem with trying to apply our accepted laws of physics to the conditions within a singularity is that all laws of physics are idealized. That is to say they only apply under specific conditions. While this is usually fine since the conditions we apply them to are close enough to those required as to make negligible difference to the final outcome, in the event of a singularity the conditions would be so far removed from anything ever experienced that no laws of physics which we have discovered could be assumed to hold.

I wouldn't say laws of physics are created, since the laws of physics are simply our way of describing things which happen, and would have happened even if we never came up with any laws. However the behavior of a singularity could certainly not be described by any laws of physics which apply to own own world.

[Perckypick]

Einstein's experiment isn't valid in any way. The comparison just doesn't match:


1. In the big bang, there were trillions of possible combinations (objects + objects that = something that can sustain life).

In reality, all you need is one sun and a planet that has water etc. to make life. So he would instead have to just have 2 parts of a watch, times a trillion, and put that in the bag.

2. The way a planet revolves around the sun takes gravity, which can happen naturally (many, MANY planets revolve around something or other, and that's not even counting asteroids!). However, a watches parts fit in such a way that it may need some external force, such as a hand or a hammer, to fit it together. Allthough the big bang is an external force, it needs to be concentrated in a way that is TRYING to fit the watch together.

3. I'm guessing he didn't wait billions of years to see if the watch came together...



All in all my conclusion is this. Although it sounds clever, it makes no sense logically. It's like if someone theorized that gravity pulls towards the earth, you kick someone else to prove it. By that I mean it's totally unrelated. The very first step of creating life (at least the kind we know, with the requirements we know) is to have a planet orbiting a sun. That is the only part he was trying to recreate. However, even that failed because at this point in type there are >trillion planets orbiting suns.

On top of this, the whole "omg what are the chances of this" is not very valid either. That's just how life is. If you line 2 billion people up and say one person will win a million dollars, well, it's a 1/2,000,000,000 chance that one of them will get the million dollars. However, it is a 2,000,000,000/2,000,000,000 chance that one of those people will get 2 million. So yes, it is very, VERY unlikely that life has taken its course and we are where we are today. However, after the big bang, life had to take its course in some way, and this just happened to be it.



My thoughts on the matter. I've been strangely obsessing over this topic since I was kid, staying up till 3 am most nights to think about it. So I'm glad there's someone who I can talk to

[Possumdude0]

The very first step of creating life (at least the kind we know, with the requirements we know) is to have a planet orbiting a sun. That is the only part he was trying to recreate. However, even that failed because at this point in type there are >trillion planets orbiting suns.

And what is the likelihood that the universe would exist in such a way as to allow even one of those planet/sun systems to form? Obviously at this point we can say that the likelihood is 1, because our existence is proof that it has happened, but what are the odds against it happening in the first place?

[lifed]

Interesting theory, I just wish there was a way to check. :c

[novalyphe]

The very first step of creating life (at least the kind we know, with the requirements we know) is to have a planet orbiting a sun. That is the only part he was trying to recreate. However, even that failed because at this point in type there are >trillion planets orbiting suns.

And what is the likelihood that the universe would exist in such a way as to allow even one of those planet/sun systems to form? Obviously at this point we can say that the likelihood is 1, because our existence is proof that it has happened, but what are the odds against it happening in the first place?

The point is that yes, the chances of a specific star and planet being in the right conditions for life are exceptionally small. However, the fact that there are billions of billions of stars in our universe (and no evidence to suggest our universe is the only one), the chances of it occurring at some point with some star become much more favorable.
This is much like the theoretical monkey with typewriter experiment, given enough chances or time, a monkey randomly pushing buttons will eventually write the entire works of Shakespeare in chronological order and with correct grammar.

[insomaniacal]

We actually did an equation to try to prove that life probably exists elsewhere, because there were a few nay-sayers.

Basically, we took about 10 different things that would be important settings to the possibility of life, found answers to how many solar systems there were (roughly) that did not meet the possibility, added a few million to that number, and subtracted it from the the # of solar systems in the universe.

After all that, there were still hundreds of thousands of possible places were life could theoretically exist, the chance that absolutely all of them except for one (us), are not capable of supporting life is simply tiny.

[Goatboy]

I reckon there have been multiple big bangs. I've got no evidence, but that's just what I think.
I reckon there is a big bang and everything expands from that point. It starts to slow down until eventually it stops and starts to reverse, falling back into itself. When all the matter reaches one point the matter is so dense that another big bang occurs.
What d'y'all think?

Dude, I thought I was the only one who thought about that! I don't really believe it, but here's what some friends and I came up with:

Each new cycle of expansion and contraction is called a Wave. Each Wave has a Memory, which is basically how the bang occurs. Each Wave is the same in terms of how the atoms fly out, group up, etc. (Memory). With each new Wave, we can "remember" events from the past Waves since they have already happened (Deja Vu). When we learn to manipulate the real world, that is a derivation of the last Wave (Psychics).

Sorry if it is vague, but it's hard to explain.

[Possumdude0]

The point is that yes, the chances of a specific star and planet being in the right conditions for life are exceptionally small. However, the fact that there are billions of billions of stars in our universe (and no evidence to suggest our universe is the only one), the chances of it occurring at some point with some star become much more favorable.
This is much like the theoretical monkey with typewriter experiment, given enough chances or time, a monkey randomly pushing buttons will eventually write the entire works of Shakespeare in chronological order and with correct grammar.

I was actually refering to the odds for any star and planet anywhere being in the right conditions for life, not a specific star and planet.

We actually did an equation to try to prove that life probably exists elsewhere, because there were a few nay-sayers.

Basically, we took about 10 different things that would be important settings to the possibility of life, found answers to how many solar systems there were (roughly) that did not meet the possibility, added a few million to that number, and subtracted it from the the # of solar systems in the universe.

After all that, there were still hundreds of thousands of possible places were life could theoretically exist, the chance that absolutely all of them except for one (us), are not capable of supporting life is simply tiny.

Is there a link to a page that discusses this study in detail. I can see several point where the study might have problems (such as the specific ten important settings for life, and estimates on the number of solar systems), and I'd like to see the specific data so I can know if it was a valid study.

Also, only hundreds of thousands of possible places? Out of the trillions upon trillions of solar systems in the observable universe?