14 comments on “Before the Big Bang ?

  1. A very concise comment from Ian there, with a lot of what he says I agree with.
    However I cant shake of the unnerving feeling that nobody else (except myself) seems to have to picked up on the fact that when the program describes Laura’s eureka moment about string theory, it iis very reminiscent of Douglas Adams account of the young girl sitting in a cafe somewhere in Islington who also suddenly worked out what it was all about but was unable to tell anybody as she was suddenly killed when the earth was demolished by the Vogon’s to make way for a hyper space by-pass.

    Luckily this never happened when Laura worked out (some) of the complexities of string theory, but what if she finally works out the theory to everything.
    Hopefully by then I would of unwittingly made friends with someone who lives somewhere in he vicinity of Beetleguice, and they can hopefully transport me of this rock before it gets demolished.

    Note to self – remember to pack one towel.

  2. Ha, yes. Towel already packed Stephen and The Guide fully charged on standby. Be interested in what professional physicists make of Rick Ryals line of reasoning in the links above.

  3. watched this and it all seemed to be about scientists trying to come up with a ‘something’ that ‘something’ could come from,not that they ever considered a Creator to be a viable option. But there was one short mention by an Asian scientist (sorry i don’t have his name) about experiments done or theory about the world’s largest vaccum chamber, as when under vaccum atoms ‘spontaneously’ appear, surely this is a demonstration of the ‘something from nothing’ that all such scientists are looking for.Of course that still does not explain how it happens just that it does!

  4. Problem with that view of the vacuum chamber experiment is that a vacuum is NOT nothing, it’s just no gaseous atomic atmosphere. There is still a lot exists and happening in a vacuum – energy, time and sub-atomic / sub-nuclear “energy/wave/particles”. That vacuum is still in THIS universe.

    It is of course interesting to understand how a new universe (and new atomic particles) can arise according to the laws of physics inside the current one – and pretty scary too. But the something rather than (literally) nothing question is totally different, and simply put to one side here as you note. (Makes you wonder why science ever bothers to argue with creationists when the question doesn’t actually appear to interest them.)

  5. Pingback: Psybertron Asks

  6. Has the BBC started a new horizon programme where we can learn more about Mersini-Houghton’s theory? All the blogs I’ve read seem to be as curious as me in wanting to know about her multiverse theory.

  7. @Lawrence – I have no knowledge of that I’m afraid. Stephen (Comment #1) seems to be connected to Mersini-Houghton. (Incidentally I strongly recommend the Rick Ryals “Anthropic Principles” links …. not to be dismissed lightly before following a particular new speculative theory; serious doubts about existing physics interpretations.)

  8. iv often wondered where god was before the big bang i think he was in his labratory doing his experiments with his test tubes and bunsen burner all bubling nicely when the little women shouted diners ready dont let it get cold so off he trots to get his diner just going to enjoy his beans on toast when he realizes he has nt turned the gas of under the test tube when there s an almighty bang is this how it happend

  9. Pingback: Psybertron Asks

  10. There is a heirarchy of intelligence. At the infinite top is obviously the supreme mind. Actually, the essence of matter (invisible or visible) is simply a dream construct in the supreme mind which is a living infinity. Infinity is alive! All the rest (observable or not) is simply an on going mental construct. This why scientists will never figure all this out until they accept the fact everything in existrence other than the supreme mind is again nothing more than controlled and structured oscillations of energy within the supreme mind.

  11. It’s an idea Steve, but hardly “obviously” – and just as much your “mental construct”, to use your term.

    I don’t think it’s true to say that the whole of existence is “simply” a mental construct – though I’d agree the way we see and understand (all of it) it is largely a mental construct based on our interaction with it.

  12. Pingback: Psybertron Asks

  13. Pingback: Psybertron Asks

  14. Pingback: Psybertron Asks

Leave a Reply