Does the big bang model state: Something Came From Nothing!?!?

[Omen]

The really exciting part will be if the Higgs Boson isn't found.  If we can't find it, it means we have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works.

Exactly!

Thats the really fascinating part about science itself, it is as exciting to find something predicted/expected as it is to not find something predicted/expected ( or even contradicted! ).

[rickymooston]

Cool.

Ironically, about 20 years ago, the physics professors in my small university here in Ottawa were almost all particle physicists doing remote research out of CERN. (One of the ph'd students from my univeristy was actually murdered near CERN while on a trip there. The guy was from India and had multiple master degrees; I believe he was looking to immigrate to the west, not sure)

I don't know much about particle physics but i used to know alot of people who did.

The really exciting part will be if the Higgs Boson isn't found.  If we can't find it, it means we have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works.

Exactly!

Thats the really fascinating part about science itself, it is as exciting to find something predicted/expected as it is to not find something predicted/expected ( or even contradicted! ).

True. Funniest story I heard about descovering something. There was this Canadian biochemist was sure this effect should "occur" but he could never produce it in the lab. He tried many times and eventually observed something. It turned out after suitable analysis, what he observed as a result of his instruments being heated up and his thesis was changed to be about that.

[Cycle4Fun]

I understand it all anyway, it wasn't exactly what I was asking, I mustn't have been too clear.
I mean ... In our world, when two things collide, as they have width, there is a definite collision point, but if two width-less membranes collide, the point in which they collide, is a singularity, which is very hard to define.
If 2 width-less membranes collide with eachother in outer-dimensional space, they would have to touch, and as they cannot collide at the point of a singularity (with no dimensions, how can it be considered a collision?), Is there a collision at all?
Can there be a collision?
Maybe there are three main objects in this equation, maybe our universe was created from this singularity when 2 Membranes collided, a 3rd space-time mesh was created, amongst the other 2.
Most other theories suggest that it is one of the 2 universe's which would be ours.
If my theory be the case, where did the other universe's come from?
where did their predecessors come from?
Which was the first universe?
How was that made?
Am I digressing way too much?
We'll never know ... 

As I understand it, you are asking what happens when 2 things with no dimension collide.  Am I getting that right?  Try to be a little more precise when talking about dimensions.  I first took a widthless object could be thought of as a plane in the Y-Z direction.  It could also be a 1D line.  Two 1D lines can collide in a 2D space.  Collisions just require an extra dimension.  It is very confusing talking about this subject when isn't very clear how many dimensions you are currently talking about.

So, lets do a thought experiment.  Can two points collide?  They can if those points exist in a dimensional space.  If two distinct singularities or points in space-time exist on the exact same spot in a 1D line they can said to have collided.  This only works if the singularities exist in a dimensional space.  If they don't exist in a dimensional space, can it even be said that a singularity exists?

You lost me on the last part of your post.  Did these membranes have dimension?  If not, how can something with no dimension suddenly create dimension?  Show your hypothesis to physicists much better at math than I.  Convince them and you'll have me convinced.

[Cycle4Fun]

...
I don't know much about particle physics but i used to know alot of people who did.

Nobody knows much about particle physics.  Some are just less ignorant than others.  I like these quotes that illustrate modern physics very well.  They are talking about quantum mechanics.

"Quantum mechanics is magic." Daniel Greenberger.

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." Niels Bohr.

"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." Niels Bohr.

"If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." John Wheeler.

"It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman.

"If [quantum theory] is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science." Albert Einstein.

"I do not like [quantum mechanics], and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it." Erwin Schrödinger.

"Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense." Roger Penrose.

[inveni0]

I understand it all anyway, it wasn't exactly what I was asking, I mustn't have been too clear.
I mean ... In our world, when two things collide, as they have width, there is a definite collision point, but if two width-less membranes collide, the point in which they collide, is a singularity, which is very hard to define.
If 2 width-less membranes collide with eachother in outer-dimensional space, they would have to touch, and as they cannot collide at the point of a singularity (with no dimensions, how can it be considered a collision?), Is there a collision at all?
Can there be a collision?
Maybe there are three main objects in this equation, maybe our universe was created from this singularity when 2 Membranes collided, a 3rd space-time mesh was created, amongst the other 2.
Most other theories suggest that it is one of the 2 universe's which would be ours.
If my theory be the case, where did the other universe's come from?
where did their predecessors come from?
Which was the first universe?
How was that made?
Am I digressing way too much?
We'll never know ... 

As I understand it, you are asking what happens when 2 things with no dimension collide.  Am I getting that right?  Try to be a little more precise when talking about dimensions.  I first took a widthless object could be thought of as a plane in the Y-Z direction.  It could also be a 1D line.  Two 1D lines can collide in a 2D space.  Collisions just require an extra dimension.  It is very confusing talking about this subject when isn't very clear how many dimensions you are currently talking about.

So, lets do a thought experiment.  Can two points collide?  They can if those points exist in a dimensional space.  If two distinct singularities or points in space-time exist on the exact same spot in a 1D line they can said to have collided.  This only works if the singularities exist in a dimensional space.  If they don't exist in a dimensional space, can it even be said that a singularity exists?

You lost me on the last part of your post.  Did these membranes have dimension?  If not, how can something with no dimension suddenly create dimension?  Show your hypothesis to physicists much better at math than I.  Convince them and you'll have me convinced.

I'm probably wrong here, but I was always tought (even through college physics) that 1-Dimension was a single point.  As soon as you add width, you get a 2nd Dimension.  So, you could not have a 1-Dimensional line.  I understand what you're saying though--that something could have width, but not height or depth.  It's just different than what I was always taught, and what I was always taught never made much sense to me, but I accepted it so I could get A's.

[rickymooston]

I'm probably wrong here, but I was always tought (even through college physics) that 1-Dimension was a single point.  As soon as you add width, you get a 2nd Dimension.  So, you could not have a 1-Dimensional line.  I understand what you're saying though--that something could have width, but not height or depth.  It's just different than what I was always taught, and what I was always taught never made much sense to me, but I accepted it so I could get A's.

A point would logicaly have zero dimensions. A line has one. A plane have two. You keep adding 1 as you go.

There may be some ways in which it is useful to consider a point a line. If you are in 1-space; ...  Mathematicians love to abstract stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_geometry

Sad you were taught to memorize. Worse way to learn math.

[sparhawk]

Cycle4Fun, that "Frankie Flatlander" post was by far the coolest thing I've read all month. Thanks for that.

[Cycle4Fun]

Cycle4Fun, that "Frankie Flatlander" post was by far the coolest thing I've read all month. Thanks for that.

You may be interested in watching this short clip then.
http://www.tenthdimension.com

I really encourage you to actually go through the steps of drawing first the 1D line, then Freddy Flatlander and twist and turn Freddy into the third dimension.  It really is the best way to learn.

Writing out the thought process of these dimensions helped me grasp the concept in my mind much more so than easy route of linking the website would have done.  Sometimes, the teacher learns more than the student.

Dimensions are just the tip of the iceberg for modern science.  I really encourage you to explore the theories of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model.  Find some books on the subjects written for a layperson at a late high school/early college level.  I can almost guarantee you will have to reread what you just read in an attempt to grasp the concepts.  The first book will leave you crying more!  I want more!

Very few things in life are as exciting as a Eureka! moment of discovery.

[Cycle4Fun]

I'm probably wrong here, but I was always tought (even through college physics) that 1-Dimension was a single point.  As soon as you add width, you get a 2nd Dimension.  So, you could not have a 1-Dimensional line.  I understand what you're saying though--that something could have width, but not height or depth.  It's just different than what I was always taught, and what I was always taught never made much sense to me, but I accepted it so I could get A's.

A point would logicaly have zero dimensions. A line has one. A plane have two. You keep adding 1 as you go.

There may be some ways in which it is useful to consider a point a line. If you are in 1-space; ...  Mathematicians love to abstract stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_geometry

Sad you were taught to memorize. Worse way to learn math.

Ricky is right,

Think of it this way.  Our 3D world has three dimensions.  A left/right, an up/down, and a forward/backward.  This is the X-Y-Z space.  If we take the cube of the X-Y-Z plane and get rid of the Z dimension height, we now have a square in the X-Y plane.  We can't go up in this plane because that dimension doesn't exist for the square.

Now if we get rid of the Y-plane in our X-Y square, what do we have left?  All we have left is a line.  We can only go left and right along the X-plane.  Up/down and forward/backward do not exist.  We can however go anywhere along the left/right line.  Now shrink the X-plane down until the line is so tiny, the word line no longer has meaning.

We've lost the only remaining dimension and are at 0-dimensions.  We can't go any place in this 0-dimension point because place no longer has any meaning!

I'm frankly impressed by your willingness to admit where you were wrong.  That speaks volumes about your character.  Never feel bad about being mistaken as long as you rectify that mistake when presented with contrary evidence or logic.

[jnallee]

It can be reasonably argued, both philosophically and scientifically, that the universe and time had a beginning sometime in the finite past. Since something cannot come out of nothing it can also be reasonably argued that there is a transcendent cause beyond space and time which brought the universe into being.

   It can be philosophically be argued that either something "ALWAYS" existed in some sense, or all of a sudden "something" came out of "nothing".
   As Dawkins says, the trascendal being himself begs the question, who created the creator.  The big bang theory as Omen says, only deals with what we can prove; i.e., that there was this instant where all the matter and energy was in one place. Before that, we have no CLUE what happened and we cannot know.

The real cop-out is saying "uh...it's unknown, at this time, and that's ALL anyone NEEDS to know" simply because one refuses to consider an alternative that does not fit one's preconceptions of the existence of God. What are you afraid of finding out?

   The real point that the atheist says honestly, is "we don't know" and we "cannot know".   Posulating a "transdendal being" is nothing more than a guess. You only "know" because you have faith.   It is NOT a question of "fear of finding out" but a question of making random guesses about things we have no means of verifying.

That is the point of the theistic position. When one considers the origins of the universe, without the "taint" of theistic faith, hypothesizing a first cause that would be truly transcendent (beyond space and time) rather than the seemingly pseudo-transcendal being to which Dawkins is limited by his faith, is certainly reasonable, whether one thinks it testable or not.

+N

[Cycle4Fun]

   The real point that the atheist says honestly, is "we don't know" and we "cannot know".   Posulating a "transdendal being" is nothing more than a guess. You only "know" because you have faith.   It is NOT a question of "fear of finding out" but a question of making random guesses about things we have no means of verifying.

That is the point of the theistic position. When one considers the origins of the universe, without the "taint" of theistic faith, hypothesizing a first cause that would be truly transcendent (beyond space and time) rather than the seemingly pseudo-transcendal being to which Dawkins is limited by his faith, is certainly reasonable, whether one thinks it testable or not.

+N
[/quote]

Faith is a belief without evidence or despite the evidence.  What faith does an atheist have?  Where you say, "Goddidit," an atheist says, "Where is the evidence of that position to make me go from a non-theist to a theist?"

A scientist, who may or may not be an atheist, would say; "There are several possible natural explanations that have not been tested and confirmed.  While one may be more likely than another, I am forced to admit that we don't know."

A belief without evidence or despite the evidence is never reasonable.

[Vynn]

That is the point of the theistic position. When one considers the origins of the universe, without the "taint" of theistic faith, hypothesizing a first cause that would be truly transcendent (beyond space and time) rather than the seemingly pseudo-transcendal being to which Dawkins is limited by his faith, is certainly reasonable, whether one thinks it testable or not.

That's fine for a philosophical discussion, and as a hypothetical possibility. It's when someone says that they claim to know what that first cause wants, and that means a certain dogma over another. That's when an intellectually honest person calls, "Bullshit!"

[jnallee]

   The real point that the atheist says honestly, is "we don't know" and we "cannot know".   Posulating a "transdendal being" is nothing more than a guess. You only "know" because you have faith.   It is NOT a question of "fear of finding out" but a question of making random guesses about things we have no means of verifying.

That is the point of the theistic position. When one considers the origins of the universe, without the "taint" of theistic faith, hypothesizing a first cause that would be truly transcendent (beyond space and time) rather than the seemingly pseudo-transcendal being to which Dawkins is limited by his faith, is certainly reasonable, whether one thinks it testable or not.

+N

Faith is a belief without evidence or despite the evidence.  What faith does an atheist have?  Where you say, "Goddidit," an atheist says, "Where is the evidence of that position to make me go from a non-theist to a theist?"

A scientist, who may or may not be an atheist, would say; "There are several possible natural explanations that have not been tested and confirmed.  While one may be more likely than another, I am forced to admit that we don't know."

A belief without evidence or despite the evidence is never reasonable.

A paraphrase of Richard Robinson's atheistic spin on the definition of faith is merely semantics, word play.
A simpler definition is that faith is trust or commitment to something one believes to be true. That's where the atheist's faith is.
I will happily agree that in the big picture, it is not really all that relevant whether the vast majority of natural phenomena are the result of a godless or God guided nature. I.e. we don't really need to know. It's gonna happen anyway.

But that's not what we're discussing here. The atheist's refusal to entertain one particular hypothesis of the first cause simply because it does not agree with their faith is neither rational nor intellectually honest. The question of the first cause seems to me to be the nexus of philosophy and science and thus quite possibly one of the most important questions of all time.

+N

[jnallee]

That is the point of the theistic position. When one considers the origins of the universe, without the "taint" of theistic faith, hypothesizing a first cause that would be truly transcendent (beyond space and time) rather than the seemingly pseudo-transcendal being to which Dawkins is limited by his faith, is certainly reasonable, whether one thinks it testable or not.

That's fine for a philosophical discussion, and as a hypothetical possibility. It's when someone says that they claim to know what that first cause wants, and that means a certain dogma over another. That's when an intellectually honest person calls, "Bulls**t!"

I agree in principle, we need to start somewhere, it might as well be at the beginning eh? 

+N

[Cycle4Fun]

   The real point that the atheist says honestly, is "we don't know" and we "cannot know".   Posulating a "transdendal being" is nothing more than a guess. You only "know" because you have faith.   It is NOT a question of "fear of finding out" but a question of making random guesses about things we have no means of verifying.

That is the point of the theistic position. When one considers the origins of the universe, without the "taint" of theistic faith, hypothesizing a first cause that would be truly transcendent (beyond space and time) rather than the seemingly pseudo-transcendal being to which Dawkins is limited by his faith, is certainly reasonable, whether one thinks it testable or not.

+N

Faith is a belief without evidence or despite the evidence.  What faith does an atheist have?  Where you say, "Goddidit," an atheist says, "Where is the evidence of that position to make me go from a non-theist to a theist?"

A scientist, who may or may not be an atheist, would say; "There are several possible natural explanations that have not been tested and confirmed.  While one may be more likely than another, I am forced to admit that we don't know."

A belief without evidence or despite the evidence is never reasonable.

A paraphrase of Richard Robinson's atheistic spin on the definition of faith is merely semantics, word play.
A simpler definition is that faith is trust or commitment to something one believes to be true. That's where the atheist's faith is.
I will happily agree that in the big picture, it is not really all that relevant whether the vast majority of natural phenomena are the result of a godless or God guided nature. I.e. we don't really need to know. It's gonna happen anyway.

But that's not what we're discussing here. The atheist's refusal to entertain one particular hypothesis of the first cause simply because it does not agree with their faith is neither rational nor intellectually honest. The question of the first cause seems to me to be the nexus of philosophy and science and thus quite possibly one of the most important questions of all time.

+N

Show me evidence that the supernatural exists and I will entertain your notion that a supernatural event could have brought about the big bang.  Until then, all we have to go on is a natural explanation.  Why should we entertain a supernatural explanation when every instance of a supposed supernatural event has been refuted or shown to have no actual evidence?

We used to know where we came from.  God spoke us into being and the universe orbited us.  Since then, man has discovered evolution occurred and man is not a special creation.  We have also learned that we are not the center of the universe.  You have pushed the goal posts of evidence for God back to the edge of science once again saying, "This is it!  This is God, because it must be!"

[Shakaib]

hmm...