What came before the Big Bang?

[Thief]

I can appreciate numbers....however....

The people that use them the most are also the people that find the limit of what a number system can do.

I've seen Dr. Kaku strike a thoughtful pose after demonstrating an equation that ends with ....infinity plus....infinity plus....infinity ( and so on)

The good Doctor then explains that infinity doesn't settle well in the mind of theoretical physics.
It seems so contrary to what they want to find in their equations.

Numbers fail at the point of singularity.
I've said so for years.
You cannot allow a secondary point and keep saying....'singular'
And the moment you allow a secondary....
Infinity is simultaneously there!

So you can't use numbers to go before the singularity.
There is no number system.

 

[philh]

A singularity is a temrinus of a spce time . So it makes no sense as far I can see to tlak about before a singularity. Howeverr one can challenege whether at the bgi bang there really is a singulaity. Many approaches to quantum gravity remvoe the singularity ard hence are able to extend the space time to before the big bang. Bu this has to be done in a thorugh way that reproduces relativity at low curvaturre. no easy task and cnat just be done by hand waving.
Right now these are a work in progress and there has been much progress but no one knows whcih approach if any is right unitl the data rules.

 

[Ouroboros]

I can appreciate numbers....however....
...
So you can't use numbers to go before the singularity.
There is no number system.

That's why calculus is so great.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, Penrose was looking for "Evidence" of a another universe in the Wmap data back in 2010.

"Signals from Before the Big Bang" --Were Telltale Patterns Glimpsed in the Afterglow?

This new evidence however support inflation.

also

"A search for concentric circles in the 7-year WMAP temperature sky maps

Authors: I. K. Wehus, H. K. Eriksen

Abstract: In a recent analysis of the 7-year WMAP temperature sky maps, Gurzadyan and Penrose claim to find evidence for violent pre-Big Bang activity in the form of concentric low-variance circles at high statistical significance. In this paper, we perform an independent search for such concentric low-variance circles, employing both chi^2 statistics and matched filters, and compare the results obtained from the 7-year WMAP temperature sky maps with those obtained from LCDM simulations. Our main findings are the following: We do reproduce the claimed ring structures observed in the WMAP data as presented by Gurzadyan and Penrose, thereby verifying their computational procedures. However, the results from our simulations do not agree with those presented by Gurzadyan and Penrose. On the contrary we obtain a substantially larger variance in our simulations, to the extent that the observed WMAP sky maps are fully consistent with the LCDM model as measured by these statistics."

Penrose's Cyclic Cosmology : Cosmic Variance


They also were using WMAP Data and now we have better ones using Planck satellite data.

There are different models for Cyclic cosmology and that is important when discussing it all. For example multiverses and bubble universes, much different then say the big crunch that they have basically ruled out now.

Jan 24, 2014
"Whilst Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan's claim that there was evidence for CCC in the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) was not accepted by the wider community, what's less well known is that a new team led by Prof Krzysztof Meissner (University of Warsaw, CERN) has claimed a confirmation of CCC in a new study. We discuss this with Professors Penrose and Meissner and put to them many questions regarding this new model."

excerpted from a forward to the Penrose YouTube video previously posted, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM47acQ7pEQ
*****
Here is an excerpt from a relatively recent paper confirming Penrose's CCC model, by Prof Krzysztof Meissner:

Structures in the Planck map of the CMB

Daniel An1 , Krzysztof A. Meissner2 , Pawel Nurowski3

Science Department SUNY Maritime College, 6 Pennyfield Av., New York 10465, USA

Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Ho ̇
za 69, 00-681 Warsaw, Poland

Center for Theoretical Physics of PAS, Al. Lotnik ́
ow 32/46, 02-688 Warsaw, Poland

"In this brief note we announce the results of a preliminary quest for the ring-type structures on the CMB maps observed by the Planck collaboration. This work corroborates our earlier analysis on WMAP data which was inspired by predictions of Roger Penrose."

You can download Meissner's paper, with illustrations, in .pdf form here:

Meissner's paper claiming confirmation of circles:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.4000.pdf

 

[Thief]

A singularity is a temrinus of a spce time . So it makes no sense as far I can see to tlak about before a singularity. Howeverr one can challenege whether at the bgi bang there really is a singulaity. Many approaches to quantum gravity remvoe the singularity ard hence are able to extend the space time to before the big bang. Bu this has to be done in a thorugh way that reproduces relativity at low curvaturre. no easy task and cnat just be done by hand waving.
Right now these are a work in progress and there has been much progress but no one knows whcih approach if any is right unitl the data rules.

Would like to know more of this!

Though science leans to the event...an ultimate starting 'point'......
I have some reservation to the nature of it.

For me.....time does not exist.

 

[shawn001]

Jan 24, 2014
"Whilst Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan's claim that there was evidence for CCC in the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) was not accepted by the wider community, what's less well known is that a new team led by Prof Krzysztof Meissner (University of Warsaw, CERN) has claimed a confirmation of CCC in a new study. We discuss this with Professors Penrose and Meissner and put to them many questions regarding this new model."

excerpted from a forward to the Penrose YouTube video previously posted, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM47acQ7pEQ
*****
Here is an excerpt from a relatively recent paper confirming Penrose's CCC model, by Prof Krzysztof Meissner:

Structures in the Planck map of the CMB

Daniel An1 , Krzysztof A. Meissner2 , Pawel Nurowski3

Science Department SUNY Maritime College, 6 Pennyfield Av., New York 10465, USA

Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Ho ̇
za 69, 00-681 Warsaw, Poland

Center for Theoretical Physics of PAS, Al. Lotnik ́
ow 32/46, 02-688 Warsaw, Poland

"In this brief note we announce the results of a preliminary quest for the ring-type structures on the CMB maps observed by the Planck collaboration. This work corroborates our earlier analysis on WMAP data which was inspired by predictions of Roger Penrose."

You can download Meissner's paper, with illustrations, in .pdf form here:

Meissner's paper claiming confirmation of circles:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.4000.pdf

I do follow Penrose's work, but read the conclusion, more works and tests need to be done.

 

[godnotgod]

I do follow Penrose's work, but read the conclusion, more works and tests need to be done.

Yes, of course. But Meissner's confirmation brings the CCC theory closer to fruition.

One of the primary sticking points Penrose continues to point out in regards to the BB, is the presence of low enttropy at the beginning of the event, which is not to be expected, and from his perspective, puts a dent in the BB theory.

 

[shawn001]

Yes, of course. But Meissner's confirmation brings the CCC theory closer to fruition.

One of the primary sticking points Penrose continues to point out in regards to the BB, is the presence of low enttropy at the beginning of the event, which is not to be expected, and from his perspective, puts a dent in the BB theory.

Most people don't understand the BB theory. Which is basically the universe was much hotter and denser in the distant past. They won't be throwing out the BB theory anytime soon if at all. The singularity to the BB theory is an add on to the theory.

If it pans out it could be evidence of mulitiverses.

 

[philh]

Yes, of course. But Meissner's confirmation brings the CCC theory closer to fruition.

One of the primary sticking points Penrose continues to point out in regards to the BB, is the presence of low enttropy at the beginning of the event, which is not to be expected, and from his perspective, puts a dent in the BB theory.

Miesners' paper was very interesting in my opinion , it was a lot better done than the previous paper. However I think if CCC is going to get any credence they need to show that it leads to the power spectrum that we see in the CMB and they havent done this. Does it lead to B mode polarisation? all this neerds to be done , Penrose says so in the video you link to. The problem I think is the first paper debacle has hurt the models credibility and who is going to put the work in to do these calculations?

 

[philh]

Would like to know more of this!

Though science leans to the event...an ultimate starting 'point'......
I have some reservation to the nature of it.

For me.....time does not exist.

If you would like to know more google these terms:
string cosmology
loop quanutm cosmology
matter bounce in Horava gravity
These are the mian candidates for a quantum description of the big bang and they all imply a pre big bang period.

 

[Thief]

If you would like to know more google these terms:
string cosmology
loop quanutm cosmology
matter bounce in Horava gravity
These are the mian candidates for a quantum description of the big bang and they all imply a pre big bang period.

If it includes a calculation...I would ignore it.
There is no number system prior to the BANG.
Without a secondary point....you can't count anything.
There's nothing to count.
There's no distance to measure.
No velocity...no movement.
Time is a quotient....nothing more.

I like science...a lot.
But the current day push to explain what we see overhead.....
and no experiment will ever suffice....

you just have to think about it.

And for me?.....Spirit First.

 

[godnotgod]

And for me?.....Spirit First.

To say that implies that something else is not-first. That makes Spirit part of a duality, and not an absolute. Is that so?

 

[Thief]

To say that implies that something else is not-first. That makes Spirit part of a duality, and not an absolute. Is that so?

Place God before His creation.....yeah.
The singularity could then be the evidence...the proving...
God and His creation...two items.....duality.

Too bad science can't really show it off.

 

[godnotgod]

Place God before His creation.....yeah.
The singularity could then be the evidence...the proving...
God and His creation...two items.....duality.

So where does God leave off and the universe begin?

 

[philh]

If it includes a calculation...I would ignore it.
There is no number system prior to the BANG.
Without a secondary point....you can't count anything.
There's nothing to count.
There's no distance to measure.
No velocity...no movement.
Time is a quotient....nothing more.

I like science...a lot.
But the current day push to explain what we see overhead.....
and no experiment will ever suffice....

you just have to think about it.

And for me?.....Spirit First.

Sorry I dont understand your response. There are a lot of models out there trying to understand what happeneed before the big bang, they are works in progress. The people working on theee are right on the frontier of our knowledge but I see no reason ot make any presumptions about nothing before the big bang or nothing to measure, thats just not justified , why do you think it is. Did you even google the temrs I suggested?

 

[Thief]

Sorry I dont understand your response. There are a lot of models out there trying to understand what happeneed before the big bang, they are works in progress. The people working on theee are right on the frontier of our knowledge but I see no reason ot make any presumptions about nothing before the big bang or nothing to measure, thats just not justified , why do you think it is. Did you even google the temrs I suggested?

Been doing this for a long time....(which does not exist btw)

Just focus on it.
A 'point' where everything you think you know.....doesn't exist.

Now....you were moving to an equation?.....
or maybe a spiritual existence kind of discussion?

 

[Thief]

So where does God leave off and the universe begin?

BANG!....in the beginning...

 

[godnotgod]

BANG!....in the beginning...

So where is the 'separation'?

In your world, it appears that God is both 'First' and separate from his so called 'creation'. If that is so, then God is not an absolute, but a relatively existing entity, ie: relative to the creation. Is that so?

First implies a second, which is also a relative status.

What you are failing to see is the underlying unity of creator to creation. You are focused on the outward manifestation, rather than the ground of being.

Ocean waves are created by the total action of the ocean, but are not separate from the ocean. Waveform emerges from the formless sea. The world of form, the universe, emerges from the formless, and returns to it.

To see 'separation' where there is only unity is to be taken in by maya.

 

[Thief]

So where is the 'separation'?

In your world, it appears that God is both 'First' and separate from his so called 'creation'. If that is so, then God is not an absolute, but a relatively existing entity, ie: relative to the creation. Is that so?

First implies a second, which is also a relative status.

What you are failing to see is the underlying unity of creator to creation. You are focused on the outward manifestation, rather than the ground of being.

Ocean waves are created by the total action of the ocean, but are not separate from the ocean. Waveform emerges from the formless sea. The world of form, the universe, emerges from the formless, and returns to it.

To see 'separation' where there is only unity is to be taken in by maya.

Think of God and His creation as one.
Many people want to do that.

But that position was held ...in the beginning....THEN BANG!
Now God is Spirit and His creation is substance.

 

[Amechania]

I believe that what came before the Big Bang was the Big Finger Bang.