A "Before" the Big Bang?

[Iacchus]

From this thread

Care to name some names? Space/time pretty much rules out a "before" to be before the big bang, you know.

Or, maybe the problem is that we have a hard time thinking outside of the box? For example, let's say we had an infinite amount of space. And that's all we had, except for a single cardboard box, 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot, somewhere out in the middle of it. (I guess that's where it would be?) So, within that box we would have 1 cubic foot of space, correct?

Now, since we are given a set of parameters by which to define space (within the box), we now have the means by which to measure time, correct? However, if we take away the box, we've just lost the only space-time coordinates we have, and consequently, are no longer able to measure time.

In which case we need to ask, what's the difference between an infinite amount of space with a cardboard box in the middle (with finite dimensions that is) versus an infinite amount of space without a cardboard box in the middle? The fact is, nothing has changed, except the cardboard box is no longer there, correct? So, wouldn't the space that the cardboard box occupied still be there, albeit we wouldn't be able to differentiate between it and the surrounding space? Hmm ... what does that say about time then, if it was wholly contingent upon that which, for all intents and purposes, is "imaginary?"

 

[Tricky]

From this thread

Or, maybe the problem is that we have a hard time thinking outside of the box? For example, let's say we had an infinite amount of space.

How much space would that be? "Infinite" is not an amount, it's a limit.

And that's all we had, except for a single cardboard box, 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot, somewhere out in the middle of it.

Where is the "middle" of infinity? How far is it from the edges?

And how can you tell it is a foot. Measurements are set up against a standard. If the standard exists, then there is something besides the box in your universe.

Now, since we are given a set of parameters by which to define space (within the box), we now have the means by which to measure time, correct?

Sort of correct, assuming a real cardboard box and not just a rectangular shape. If there are atoms in the cardboard, then there are electrons whizzing around their nuclei. Since something is moving in relationship to something else, then time exists.

Now, since we are given a set of parameters by which to define space (within the box), we now have the means by which to measure time, correct? However, if we take away the box, we've just lost the only space-time coordinates we have, and consequently, are no longer able to measure time.

Totally hypothetical. Matter/energy cannot be destroyed, only changed. You can't "take it away" because there is nowhere for it to go. But staying on the hypothetical level, if there is no matter or energy in the universe, then nothing can happen in relationship to anything else, hence, no time.

In which case we need to ask, what's the difference between an infinite amount of space with a cardboard box in the middle (with finite dimensions that is) versus an infinite amount of space without a cardboard box in the middle?

The cardboard box.

And you can't quantify infinity anyway, so it is not logical to speak of the "difference in infinities". They have no value, so you cannot perform subtraction on them. For example, what is wrong with the following equation

∞ = ∞ +1 (since you can't have more than infinity)
∞ - ∞ = 1 (subtract infinity from each side)
0=1 (infinity cancels itself out)

What is wrong with the equation is that infinity is not an amount. You can't do algebra with it. To ask what is the difference between infinity and infinity minus one cardboard box is a meaningless question.

The fact is, nothing has changed, except the cardboard box is no longer there, correct?

100% incorrect Everthing has changed. The cardboard box was the entire universe since it was the only thing in the universe. What is the difference between a universe and no universe?

So, wouldn't the space that the cardboard box occupied still be there.

No. It would still be a void. Nothing would be there. The only thing that was "there" was the cardboard box, and now it's gone. That particular universe does not exist.

Hmm ... what does that say about time then, if it was wholly contingent upon that which, for all intents and purposes, is "imaginary?"

It says nothing about it. Nor does it indicate that anything was imaginary. Until you stop thinking of "nothing" as "a thing", you will never be able to wrap your head around the concept of spacetime.

 

[Iacchus]

How much space would that be? "Infinite" is not an amount, it's a limit.

So, what is the Universe, which is "finite," expanding into?

Where is the "middle" of infinity? How far is it from the edges?

Well, let's say it was not infinite then, would it matter, so long as the coardboard box was all you "knew of," in relation to everything else?

And what if it were actually sitting inside of another cardboard box, that you are completely unaware of? Now, just because you're not aware of it, does that mean it does not exist? You know, similar to the tree that falls in woods, that if nobody saw it, we ask if it really happened?

 

[Upchurch]

From this thread

Also from that thread.

 

[Tricky]

So, what is the Universe, which is "finite," expanding into?

Nothing.

Well, let's say it was not infinite then, would it matter, so long as the coardboard box was all you "knew of," in relation to everything else?

If there were other things in the universe, then spacetime would exist. It would make no difference whatsoever whether or not you "knew" of them. They would still exist.

And what if it were actually sitting inside of another cardboard box, that you are completely unaware of? Now, just because you're not aware of it, does that mean it does not exist?

If it exists, then it exists. However, it must be potentially possible for you to discover its existence, even if extremely difficult (for example, you might have to live several hundred million years until the light waves reached you). Real things have evidence, whether or not you discover it.

You know, similar to the tree that falls in woods, that if nobody saw it, we ask if it really happened?

If a tree falls, it leaves evidence, even if nobody saw it. It makes sound vibrations. It leaves a fallen tree trunk. It leaves indentations that could be used to show the velocity of the fall. If it happened, it left some evidence.

 

[Iacchus]

If a tree falls, it leaves evidence, even if nobody saw it. It makes sound vibrations. It leaves a fallen tree trunk. It leaves indentations that could be used to show the velocity of the fall. If it happened, it left some evidence.

So, the second cardboard box that you're wholly unaware remains then, correct?

 

[.13.]

This got me to thinkg about virtual particles that appear and cancel eachother in a void. Would those appear in Iacchus' example without the cardboard box? How would their relative motion relate to time, would time exist if there were virtual particles or do we need actual particles for time?

 

[Iacchus]

Nothing.

So, if nothing is equivalent to nothing, would you be able to quantify that as an "infinite" amount of nothing? ... Got you there!

 

[Tricky]

So, the second cardboard box that you're wholly unaware remains then, correct?

Of course. You have defined this universe to have a second cardboard box. And since it is there, it must be possible for me to stop being wholly unaware of its existence.

 

[Iacchus]

Of course. You have defined this universe to have a second cardboard box. And since it is there, it must be possible for me to stop being wholly unaware of its existence.

Sorry, I got a little bit ahead of myself there.

 

[Iacchus]

Nothing.

So, if space is expanding into nothing, does this mean that time is just "beginning" right at the point that space is expanding? If so, then we are always having a "new" beginning of time, with respect to the "new" Universe which is beginning at "this time" ... i.e., "now." Notwithstanding that it's all transpiring, right at this very moment, beyond all of the time which has occurred since the very beginning, at the moment of the Big Bang. Wow ... Very interesting!

 

[Tricky]

So, if space is expanding into nothing, does this mean that time is just "beginning" right at the point that space is expanding? If so, then we are always having a "new" beginning of time, with respect to the "new" Universe which is beginning at "this time" ... i.e., "now." Notwithstanding that it's all transpiring, right at this very moment, beyond all of the time which has occurred since the very beginning, at the moment of the Big Bang. Wow ... Very interesting!

Time is not beginning at a "point" that it is expanding into. There is no point. Time exists within the universe. Nothing exists (including time) outside of the universe. However, the concepts are indeed fascinating. I'll bet there are people here who could teach you a lot or direct you to sources to read where you could learn just how fascinating it is. Are you fascinated enough to actually study it?

 

[Tricky]

So, if nothing is equivalent to nothing, would you be able to quantify that as an "infinite" amount of nothing? ... Got you there!

(Sigh). Try doing math with zero. It doesn't work any better than infinity. What you have "got" is an inferior education. That can be remedied, if you care to study.

 

[kedo1981]

Sorry, but this babble “suggests” that you’re completely ignorant of current theories about the beginning of “our” universe.
Read one of S. Hawkings books our even one of the many web pages about his theories and then you’ll see that it is not part of the “Big Bang Theory” that the universe came from nothing.

 

[Iacchus]

(Sigh). Try doing math with zero. It doesn't work any better than infinity. What you have "got" is an inferior education. That can be remedied, if you care to study.

You said there was nothing there. So, how is it possible for space to expand into nothing? That seems like a simple enough question. Hey, maybe I am ignorant but, have you ever tried blowing hot air into a balloon. Something tells me you would be quite successful at it.

 

[Mercutio]

Time is not beginning at a "point" that it is expanding into. There is no point. Time exists within the universe. Nothing exists (including time) outside of the universe. However, the concepts are indeed fascinating. I'll bet there are people here who could teach you a lot or direct you to sources to read where you could learn just how fascinating it is. Are you fascinated enough to actually study it?

Start with the May issue of Playboy. Seriously. Ten Reasons To Believe In The Big Bang (amazingly, not a double entendre), as well as Julia Sweeney's wonderful article (not the same as "letting go of god", but great reading nonetheless).


Julia Sweeney autographed my copy. "Mercutio, you bastard, quit stalking me! Julia Sweeney" I am the luckiest man on earth.

 

[Mercutio]

You said there was nothing there. So, how is it possible for space to expand into nothing? That seems like a simple enough question. Hey, maybe I am ignorant but, have you ever tried blowing hot air into a balloon. Something tells me you would be quite successful at it.

Actually, there is no maybe. You are ignorant of these things, and if you are honest with yourself, you know you are. Perhaps people can suggest sources which are both informative and accessible? Besides Playboy, I mean?

 

[Iacchus]

Sorry, but this babble “suggests” that you’re completely ignorant of current theories about the beginning of “our” universe.

Read one of S. Hawkings books our even one of the many web pages about his theories and then you’ll see that it is not part of the “Big Bang Theory” that the universe came from nothing.

And at what point (in this thread) have I implied that anyone suggested any such thing? It was Tricky (or, can't you read) who suggested the Universe was expanding into nothing.

 

[Mercutio]

And at what point (in this thread) have I implied anyone suggested any such thing? It was Tricky (or, can't you read) who suggested the Universe expanded into nothing.

Which is not the same thing as "came from nothing." That one is your strawman, as we have seen many times. Don't be a coward and try to run from your record; it is too easily found.

 

[Iacchus]

Time is not beginning at a "point" that it is expanding into. There is no point. Time exists within the universe. Nothing exists (including time) outside of the universe. However, the concepts are indeed fascinating. I'll bet there are people here who could teach you a lot or direct you to sources to read where you could learn just how fascinating it is. Are you fascinated enough to actually study it?

Which is to say the Universe is not expanding then? ... Which is it? What about the interval between the moment it's expanding -- at the point of nothing of course -- and say, two or three seconds later? Are you saying time didn't begin at that point? If not, then where the hell did those two or three seconds come from?