What's new

Massive space galaxy weighs as much as 800 trillion Suns

No.. but even in the case of a multiverse, to assume all those came from their own respective big bangs is wrong.

Physics being a pure science has no provision for assumption unlike social science such as economics where you can arrive at equilibrium price between demand and supply assuming the markets to be perfectly competitive, knowing that such markets never exist.

If scientist could, they would.. else science would not have evolved.

Regards,
Anoop.

Yes extensive research is going on, on what happened during the big bang and before it.
 
. .
Trust me most of the thing were written in Quran, a lot before scientist even discovered it

There could be some references, but we only interpret things to suit the situation. I have seen people saying that modern science has been described in Vedas too. So can we sue the westerners, who are gurus of science, for copy right infringement?
 
.
Physics being a pure science has no provision for assumption unlike social science such as economics where you can arrive at equilibrium price between demand and supply assuming the markets to be perfectly competitive, knowing that such markets never exist.

Yes, and you made that assumption. That is the only point I objected to.

Yes extensive research is going on, on what happened during the big bang and before it.

Again you contradict yourself

As regarding whether physicist should go beyond big bang, it may not be required
 
.
Yes, and you made that assumption. That is the only point I objected to.
What is the assumption I made? And Please there is a difference between probability and assumptions. The Eternal Inflation which predicts around 10^500 universes is based on probability

Again you contradict yourself

What I was arguing is that evidence before big bang is not required to explain the happening after the big bang. It doesn’t mean research is not going on what happened before big bang
 
.
What is the assumption I made? And Please there is a difference between probability and assumptions. The Eternal Inflation which predicts around 10^500 universes is based on probability


Perhaps I read it wrong, but in the following statements the implicit meaning one gets, or at least I get is that, all those "universes" in the multiverse have a beginning by big bang. That is the assumption. If you did not mean it that way, that is fine. :)

the laws of physics are dependent on the fundamental properties of the fundamental particles such as electrons, protons etc… and the fundamental properties of the fundamental particles are determined at the time of big bang…and as the big bang cannot be replicated exactly similar every time, the law physics should be different in different universes


What I was arguing is that evidence before big bang is not required to explain the happening after the big bang. It doesn’t mean research is not going on what happened before big bang

Okay. But in fact, there is no research on because there is nothing "before big bang".

Regards,
Anoop
 
.
Perhaps I read it wrong, but in the following statements the implicit meaning one gets, or at least I get is that, all those "universes" in the multiverse have a beginning by big bang. That is the assumption. If you did not mean it that way, that is fine. :)

the laws of physics are dependent on the fundamental properties of the fundamental particles such as electrons, protons etc… and the fundamental properties of the fundamental particles are determined at the time of big bang…and as the big bang cannot be replicated exactly similar every time, the law physics should be different in different universes

This is not what I am saying…This is what has been predicted by M-Theory of Edward Written, arguable the greatest physicist after Einstein. According to M-theory all the Universes are created by collision between P-branes in turn creating Universes confined to their individual to D-branes. These collisions are what we call big bangs. The D-branes are laws of physics.

Okay. But in fact, there is no research on because there is nothing "before big bang".

Regards,
Anoop

Research is going big time on events during and before big bang. By quantum modifications of cosmological equations and quantum gravitational calculation physicist are developing models describing the state of Universe before big bang.
 
.
This is not what I am saying…This is what has been predicted by M-Theory of Edward Written, arguable the greatest physicist after Einstein. According to M-theory all the Universes are created by collision between P-branes in turn creating Universes confined to their individual to D-branes. These collisions are what we call big bangs. The D-branes are laws of physics.

Okay... that theory does even have proper takers as of now, which I agree does not necessarily mean it is incorrect. However do point me to some literature which says that those universes in multiverses, all of them, started with a respective big bang. String theory, so far as my knowledge goes, makes no such claims.


Research is going big time on events during and before big bang. By quantum modifications of cosmological equations and quantum gravitational calculation physicist are developing models describing the state of Universe before big bang.

Would appreciate some links to support that research is indeed on, on "before big bang"

Regards,
Anoop.
 
.
Okay... that theory does even have proper takers as of now, which I agree does not necessarily mean it is incorrect. However do point me to some literature which says that those universes in multiverses, all of them, started with a respective big bang. String theory, so far as my knowledge goes, makes no such claims.

It is surprising that you haven't heard much about M Theory. At present one of the area of extensive research. The research is so extensive that there are now so many variation of the theory. Just googling will prove how extensive the research has been. And one of the main area of M Theory has been Multiple Universes and their evolution.

Books by Brain Greene and Kaku have popularized the M Theory and particularly the three episode on discovery channel by Greene are must watch.

Would appreciate some links to support that research is indeed on, on "before big bang"

Regards,
Anoop.

Some of the links are

Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?
What Came 'Before' the Big Bang? Leading Physicist Presents a Radical Theory (New VIDEO Weekend Feature)
 
.
It is surprising that you haven't heard much about M Theory. At present one of the area of extensive research. The research is so extensive that there are now so many variation of the theory. Just googling will prove how extensive the research has been. And one of the main area of M Theory has been Multiple Universes and their evolution.

Books by Brain Greene and Kaku have popularized the M Theory and particularly the three episode on discovery channel by Greene are must watch.

In fact I have Michio Kaku's book with me and I have read it. Hence I asked for a source that claims all universes in multiverse came from their own "respective" big bangs. The book, parallel worlds, at least claims no such thing nor does any material that I have read.



I am not sure how much of this, part of so called meta physics, is actually considered proper physics. And I do not know if it is a proper research subject. But yes, I concede you have provided links. I shall try to find out more on this. If this is just an odd article or is it a dedicated research subject.

Regards,
Anoop.
 
.
God gave us the knowledge.
The guy who discovered gravity was not taught about that in school and so on.

Than we should worship 'the guy' instead of that God. Because there is no indication that the God has given him knowledge but as far as anyone can say his society, educational background, thought process and creativity let him to discover it. After all though Aristotle or Archimedes were great scientists they could not ever think about special theory of relativity!
 
.
In fact I have Michio Kaku's book with me and I have read it. Hence I asked for a source that claims all universes in multiverse came from their own "respective" big bangs. The book, parallel worlds, at least claims no such thing nor does any material that I have read.

M Theory extensively discusses on the origins. They are mathematically sound, but until now no physical evidence of existence of strings

I am not sure how much of this, part of so called meta physics, is actually considered proper physics. And I do not know if it is a proper research subject. But yes, I concede you have provided links. I shall try to find out more on this. If this is just an odd article or is it a dedicated research subject.

Regards,
Anoop.

No they are not part of meta physics. Research is going in Princeton and Penn State and there was a recent article in this subject in a reputed academic journal
 
.
M Theory extensively discusses on the origins. They are mathematically sound, but until now no physical evidence of existence of strings

Yes. My only contention here is that they do not say that big bang started all those universes.


Research is going in Princeton and Penn State and there was a recent article in this subject in a reputed academic journal

Thanks. I stand corrected here. :)

Regards,
Anoop
 
.
Yes. My only contention here is that they do not say that big bang started all those universes.
Regards,
Anoop

I found something for you. Hope this interests you

Most of the (scientific) answers you've been given so far are great descriptions of the moment OF the Big Bang, based off the 'Cosmic Egg' model (which also handily appeared as a metaphysical speculation thousands of years ago in India).

Obviously, time and space take on a new meaning in a Universe which exists relative to them. But I presume you are more curious about how such a relation between the Universe, space and time could come into existence without already existing in some way.

While nobody can say for sure, the most interesting theory I've heard comes out of String Theory, and sort of does a tricky reductionism of sorts, and should be held as suspect as all theoretical physics, but basically goes as follows: There are multiple dimensions which exist (somewhere between 10 and 29) and all exist not as 'places' but as forces and/or extended objects. So, essentially, consider the dimensions we are familiar with (3 spatial directions and time) and how these things 'exist' independent of the world in which they appear. It's difficult, if not impossible to authentically do; in fact, some philosophers (Kant, notably) suggested that these were basic categories of apprehension, without which consciousness could not exist at all.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that there are 10 to 29 dimensions, and our carbon-based brains are limited in comprehending in any meaningful way what those dimensions may actually be.

Nonetheless--- by inference and mathematics which far exceed anything I could actually explain, physicists have argued that the 4 dimensions which we are aware of cannot be explained in and of themselves, and require 'extra dimensions' to make sense of them.

The dimensions are supposed to exist in the aforementioned 'extended objects' which can be mapped out mathematically, and is referred to as a D-brane. It has been proposed that D-branes are themselves 'vibratory rates' of super strings, which are yet another kind of dimension stretched in an infinite linear plane.

I know, it all sounds pretty #$%ed up. But just wait...

The Big Bang supposedly happened when (for reasons which are themselves unknown) two D-branes/dimensions/superstrings 'collided', and the resulting 'collision of dimensions' resulted in what we lovingly refer to as 'the Big Bang'.

Part of this theory implies that Universes get created all the time, and that there are a possibly infinite number of 'bubble universes'. I personally consider it a bit of hopeful and imaginative speculation which is more fantastical that firmly planted in 'firm' science... but most theories seem so until they get refined.

So; our Universe is basically a subset of a much larger organization of dimensions, and when these dimensions collide, they incite new Universes. It's possible that different collisions of different dimensions would create wholly different kinds of 'Universes'--- some where time or space operate differently, for instance.

I'd recommend reading up on D-branes and string theory to get a better explanation of all this than I've probably provided. But for now, that's the most up-to-date explanation of the Big Bang's inception that I'm aware of.
 
.
God gave us the knowledge.
The guy who discovered gravity was not taught about that in school and so on.

But...have fun with your beliefs.





Science is a different field with proof for any concept. But religion is based only on beliefs. So both should never be interwoven.

In fact religion should update its concepts by respecting science wherever needed.
:cool:
 
Last edited:
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom