What Happened Before the Big Bang?

The Bad Astronomer writes to tell us that a recent advance in Loop Quantum Gravity theory appears to allow the mathematics of cosmology to be extended to the time before the Universe underwent the Big Bang. Bad Astronomer also attempts to simplify things a bit with his own explanation of the new discovery.

Comments

Easy

[voice_of_all_reason]

The big foreplay.

Come on, what do you think, the universe is a whore?

Re:Easy

[elrous0]

Before the big bang? That was back when God was in college. He totally meant to create the universe--but he was having problems with his girlfriend, his parents were giving him all kinds of shit, his weed connection got busted by the cops, and his humanities professor was riding his ass about that late paper. He finally did get his shit together and did the whole "let there be light" thing, though. Hey, we've all been young, right?

Re:Easy

[glindsey]

humanities professor was riding his ass about that late paper

Considering God had yet to create humans, this was a particularly difficult paper to write.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe that. If God was a student, he wouldn't have taken six days to create the world and then rested on the seventh, he'd have spent six days partying, half the seventh hung over and stayed up all night to get it finished.

The Paper & Article

[eldavojohn]

What Bojowald's work does, as I understand it (the paper as I write this is not out yet, so I am going by my limited knowledge of LQG and other theories like it) is simplify the math enough to be able to trace some properties of the Universe backwards, right down to T=0, which he calls the Big Bounce. I caught this story on PhysOrg yesterday and subsequently found the full text from the Journal of Nature Physics. While Mr. Bojowald has many papers currently up for review, I believe the precise paper is available on Arxiv.

As Bad Astronomer noted, this isn't the first time something like this has been proposed. I think the first time I read about it was in a book by George Gamov and then subsequent work/proposed theories done by Roger Penrose & the well known Stephen Hawking.

Considering past results of my comments on matters I have little formal education on, I'll won't bother to remark on this work.

There is no before the Big Bang.

[Ckwop]

I've always held that asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole? It's a grammatically correct question but we can't expect it to mean anything.

While we don't have a working theory of quantum gravitation, we do have some strong hints that time and and space themselves were forged in the Big Bang. If you look at a Universe a Planck Length is size, the error in the time of any event observed would be longer than the time the Universe has existed for, to this point, and any error is position would be large than the current Universe at that size.

In short, time and space are useless measurements of a Universe this small.

In a very real sense, the Universe has always existed but has a finite age. I think once I came to understand what this really meant, it's very a beautiful truth about the world. I am sceptical of any theory that talks about a "before" the Big Bang - I think it misses one of the most important truths there is to know!

Simon

Re:There is no before the Big Bang.

[khallow]

While we don't have a working theory of quantum gravitation, we do have some strong hints that time and and space themselves were forged in the Big Bang. If you look at a Universe a Planck Length is size, the error in the time of any event observed would be longer than the time the Universe has existed for, to this point, and any error is position would be large than the current Universe at that size.

Time and length can be measured simultaneously without problem. Position, momentum and time, energy are the pairs that are subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and cannot be measured simultaneously to arbitrary accuracy.

In short, time and space are useless measurements of a Universe this small.

But with high energy and momentum density, I think time and space make sense. And that's assuming that the Big Bang is a singularity with initial time origin.

Re:There is no before the Big Bang.

[eln]

That's an interesting hypothesis, and one I've heard before. What is the evidence for it though? Is it just that all of our current models break down at that point, so we assume there was nothingness? Or do we have some sort of observed evidence to support the idea that time itself did not exist prior to the big bang?

As humans, we have a hard time envisioning "eternity," but we have an equally hard time grappling with the idea that existence itself would have a finite beginning or end. Both of these concepts exist too far out of our experience to really grasp. I guess this is why people find so much comfort in faith in a divine being that both exists eternally and defines the beginning and end of existence as we know it.

Re:There is no before the Big Bang.

[Pendersempai]

I've always held that asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole? It's a grammatically correct question but we can't expect it to mean anything.... I think once I came to understand what this really meant, it's very a beautiful truth about the world. I am sceptical of any theory that talks about a "before" the Big Bang - I think it misses one of the most important truths there is to know!

I agree that it's a beautiful concept, but it might not be right. It's testable, and they're going to test it. If you want call your arguments scientific, you have to accept that in science, the most beautiful explanation is not always the correct one. I think that both geocentrism and flat-earth theory are beautiful in a kind of fairy tale aesthetic, but we had to let them go because they were wrong. If they run the experiments and conclude that time extended prior to the big bang, so be it.

Anyway, isn't it more appealing that time is cyclical rather than terminal? Consider the alternative: all the rich vibrancy of the universe slowly dying of metastasized entropy until it is an ever-expanding fossil of inert dust. How much nicer that there may be a cure for entropy, even if it is one that we will not survive!

Re:There is no before the Big Bang.

[fractoid]

It's not measurement that's the problem. It's existance. A quantum object does not have a well-defined position/momentum. More information, please? This assertion is the fundamental problem I've always had with quantum theory, and every time I ask someone who thinks they know what they're taking about to explain it, they wave their hands around a bit, say "Heisenberg" a few times, then claim it's lunchtime and they really must go. The uncertainty principle as I've always had it explained to me (for instance, in my university physics course) is that observation of (ie. interaction with) a particle affects that particle in a way that you can't determine, and hence it isn't possible to simultaneously measure some quantities. There seems to be a big jump from "can't measure" to "doesn't exist" and no-one seems willing to talk about it.

Re:There is no before the Big Bang.

[TrekkieGod]

It's not measurement that's the problem. It's existance. A quantum object does not have a well-defined position/momentum. More information, please? This assertion is the fundamental problem I've always had with quantum theory, and every time I ask someone who thinks they know what they're taking about to explain it, they wave their hands around a bit, say "Heisenberg" a few times, then claim it's lunchtime and they really must go. The uncertainty principle as I've always had it explained to me (for instance, in my university physics course) is that observation of (ie. interaction with) a particle affects that particle in a way that you can't determine, and hence it isn't possible to simultaneously measure some quantities. There seems to be a big jump from "can't measure" to "doesn't exist" and no-one seems willing to talk about it.

I'm not a physicist, I'm an EE. I took one semiconductors class in college that touched a bit on this, and we didn't go very deep, so take this with a grain of salt. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate very much if someone who knows more than I do can correct me. No experiment can ever, no matter how perfect, no matter how much technology improves, measure position and momentum so that the uncertainty on the measurement of momentum times the uncertainty on the measurement of position is less than the planck constant divided by 4 pi. This isn't due to the effect the observation has on the particle. Even if the observation has absolutely no effect on the particle, that's the best you can do. For example, if you two particles are entangled, and you make your measurement on one of them, your observation did not physically interact with the second particle. Nevertheless you still won't be able to measure the position of one of the entangled particles and then measure the momentum of the other and end up with values to a more precise degree than the one described in the equation above.

There are multiple interpretations for what is actually happening that prevents us from getting more precise measurements. Some of these interpretations assume that the reason we can't measure them is because the quantum particle honestly does not have its position and momentum well defined below that point. That seems to be the more accepted interpretation these days, although that wasn't always the case, which is why you were taught that the observer effect is responsible for the measurement uncertainty. Whatever is really going on however, we are sure that the uncertainty in measuring position and momentum is completely independent from the observer effect. Even if your experiment does not disrupt the particle, and even if your measurement device for position and your measurement device for momentum each are somehow individually more precise to values far below planck constant / 4 pi, you still won't be able to make a measurement on a particle without affecting the other measurement.

Einstein and Bohr had some some serious disagreements over the issue. Einstein believed as you do that you should be able to make those measurements given a proper experiment. Bohr held the opposite view. The Boh-Einstein Debates are extremely interesting reading on the subject, and I recommend you take a look. These were two brilliant scientists trying to stump one another, so the arguments on each side were great.

Re:There is no before the Big Bang.

[xPsi]

You are basically right on (IAAP). Here's my two cents into the thread:

There are are lots of different ways to understand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle physically -- most of them not very satisfying without acclimating to the lingo and concepts of quantum theory. Nevertheless, I think one can gain an intellectual foothold into the idea, before even digging into the quantum theory, by realizing that ALL wave behavior (sound, water, radio, light, etc.) obeys something akin to a HUP. If you can get the basic idea down for sound or water waves, then you can start to build a conceptual bridge to matter waves. Since you are an EE, the conceptual underpinnings will probably look quite familiar.

Lots of mathematical qualifications aside, basically ALL waveforms can be represented by a sum of harmonic waves (pure sine and cosine functions). A single pure sine or cosine has a well defined frequency, wavelength, and wave velocity. However, in contrast, an arbitrary waveform does NOT have a single wavelength or frequency -- it has many, given by the distribution of sines and cosines that were used to construct it. A handy variable to use is called the wavenumber, which is basically the number of cycles per meter (proportional to 1/wavelength) of a harmonic wave. An interesting thing to do is plot a particular waveform, say a snapshot of a water wave shaped like a lump at a moment in time, and then also plot the distribution of wavenumbers from all the sines and cosines making up that lump. They are two representations of the same object. One looks like a water lump in space, and the other will look like another lump telling you the distribution of sines and cosines in "wavenumber space." What you find is that if your water lump in space is narrow, then it takes many sines and cosines of many wavenumbers to make that happen. If the water lump is very spread out, you only need a narrow range of wavenumbers of harmonic waves to make this happen. Many engineers are very familiar with this bandwidth effect in the context of transmission theory, but the same will be true for ANY waveform. It is a byproduct of wave theory: the width of the spatial distribution of an arbitrary wave is inversely related to the width of its wavenumber distribution. If you allow the wave to change in time, you get a similar inverse relation for the distribution of the wave in time and the distribution of frequencies in the wave. You are probably familiar with all that in the context of Fourier analysis etc. One says that wavenumber and position are "complimentary" (so are frequency and time).

The big leap in quantum mechanics is that the momentum of a particle is inversely related to the wavelength of some harmonic wave "associated with" the particle. The larger the momentum, the shorter the wavelength of the matter wave and vice versa. That is, momentum and position are complimentary variables. Keep in mind, the wave isn't the particle itself but rather tells you where the particle is likely to be. Once you accept the rather odd idea that momentum and wavelength are inversely related, *wave theory alone* tells you that the more likely a particle is to be at a particular location in space, the wider its distribution of wavenumbers is -- and thus the wider range of momenta it can have. Similarly, if you have a very narrow range of wavenumbers, the wider the spatial extent of the matter wave -- thus for a well defined momentum the particle has a wider range of spatial positions available to it. This is basically the heart of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Since this matter wave tells you about probabilities, you need to prepare an ensemble of identical objects and do a statistical analysis of their positions and momenta to see the effect of the HUP. For example, lets say you prepare 100 particles each with a well defined position. Now you perform a position measurement followed by a momentum measurement for each particle. Taking your raw data, you made a plot of the number

Well, the last thing said before was...

[Critical Facilities]

"Hey guys, watch this"

Everyone knows....

[Himring]

Everyone knows that just before the big bang, chuck norris was launching a roundhouse kick....

The punchline

[Spy der Mann]

These theories may seem like mumbo-jumbo or magic, but they have that very basic property of science: they're testable.

As a science-loving person, I almost fell in ecstasy by just reading this sentence. It really gets things straight regarding religious fanboyism. So "eat that, Intelligent Design".

Ahh... saying that felt so good.

Re:The punchline

[mhall119]

Just because something is testable means that God could not have played a role? No, being testable means that it doesn't matter whether or not God played a role.

Re:The punchline

[sohare]

It's not just fundamentalists that are the problem. It's religion as a whole, because it's a very pervasive and invasive world-view. A fundamentalist is a lot like a deity. They need worshipers/people that are willing to listen to their jibe in order to have an effect.

We'd have no problem with the various pseudosciences in the world if people had a little less faith and exercised a little more incredulity and skepticism. But instead you have huge segments of the population that don't even know what science is, and distrust their false image of the scientific method. It's not usually the fundamentalist at all who gets into trouble by believing in woo-woo, quackery, and pseudosciences. It's the desperate. Take parents of a child with cancer. They are so desperate they get sucked into paying loads of cash for some psychic/spiritual healer/naturopath who has some theories they pulled from their ass. Their faith in "something greater" and utter desperation is what takes the kid off chemo and leads to his ultimate death.

It always cracks me up when people talk about how close-minded skeptics, humanists, atheists, scientists, etc. are. Yet most of those people:

1) rarely have strong emotional attachments to woo-woo (i.e., what does the skeptic care of physics really do have ESP? Not a lick. But the psychics sure have a heavy investment)
2) can be convinced of something if there is evidence presented in a good fashion. Good always means scientific because other evidence usually boils down to personal anecdote
3) tend to educate themselves about a lot.

And you want to tell me that a person who has "faith" in some cosmic conscious energy floating through everything, some deity, something you can never objectively point out to others, and rejects good-intentioned data collection methods (science) is somehow open minded?

Absolutely disgusting.

Re:The punchline

[Darby]

At the same time though science asks for as much if not more faith. Not of itself you are correct, but of the unwashed masses.

Twaddle.
We have things like clean water, roads, cars, planes, cities, computers, and fricking *space ships* all due to science.
What exactly can you point to that god did?
Oh, the universe. Any proof of that? Any evidence?

No, huh?

So apart from making yourself look very silly by telling lies so stupid a child could easily call you out on them, was there any point in making that entirely false and completely ridiculous statement?

Re:The punchline

[Darby]

Ask the devout what God did, and he will point to rivers, horses, birds, ants, you, me, and the stars.

Ask them for evidence. They have not a scrap.
Ask me who built the CPU in this machine?

AMD corporation.
They have a website here.
They maintain offices here:

One AMD Place
P.O. Box 3453
Sunnyvale, California 94088-3453

Now, this could all be an elaborate hoax, but the more hard evidence I pile up, the sillier you look trying to twist it around to the "religious belief" point of view.

This is Seraphim_72's [author of this post's grandparent] point. Where is YOUR evidence?

The evidence is in the result. We have computers. While I couldn't build one myself at any level beyond inserting tab A in slot A, that doesn't mean I haven't been in a chip fab and seen them being made. It doesn't mean that just because I couldn't assemble my own space shuttle starting from digging up rocks in my yard that it is equally likely that it was man made or assembled by elves in the night while the "rocket scientists" were sleeping, or created by a magical invisible fairy.

That is the fundamental difference between those 2 views. The OPs argument was crap because it's just a variation of argument to incredulity. It's a fallacious argument from the get go.

If you were, you wouldn't resort to insults to attempt to make your point.

I didn't resort to insults to make my point. I made my point and then concluded, based on how blatant of a fallacy his argument is, that the insults were appropriate. In other words, they were part of the conclusion, not the argument. You fail basic logic just like the OP.

And for much of it, I'll never prove it, and yet believe it for the rest of my life.

"Believing" in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is nothing like "believing" that a magical invisible fairy made the universe and us so he could fuck with us.

For the first, there was a massive amount of evidence and, much more importantly, it led to new conclusions which led to inventions and changed the world far more and far more positively than any ignorant beliefs about the probably unknowable. Further, it turns out that Newton was wrong. Now people mostly "believe" in Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The progress made using Newton's equations didn't crumble to dust, but expanded.

The second adds nothing. It answers no questions. Any it claims to are just pushed back by, not answers, but by the same questions in different clothes.
Further there does not exist a single scrap of evidence for *any* of the mystical nonsense and even quite a bit of the non mystical is either false or has nothing backing it up.

So, no, there is nothing in common between the two things. All you've done is shown that you don't get the idea that one word can have different meanings depending on the context.

"Belief" in a religious sense is, by necessity, belief in the extraordinary with no evidence.
"Belief" in the sense you used it regarding technology you couldn't build by yourself is belief informed. I know an airplane is flying overhead. I also know that it does that in accordance with Bernoulli's law. I believe that it won't magically stop and drop straight down out of the sky, and what do you know? It's still flying.

Re:The punchline

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

I don't trust the scientists, the research, or the theories. I trust the system and the results. The system has proven itself by providing real results, over and over again. From GMO crops to the laser to the refrigirator that most of us own, we can see that the results fit the model.

No, I can't go and verify everything personally. But I would much, much rather have "faith" in a system that prides itself in retesting and modifying hypotheses than a system that says skepticism is wrong.

Every time we find out that our conclusions were wrong, the religous laugh. I smile. Knowing and accepting that you are wrong is the first step towards getting it right. Such an attitude does not exist in most religions.

I can't prove that quantum mechanics works. But I do know that a laser works. Ah, but what if quantum mechanics is wrong, and the laser actually works on a different principle? Irrelevent. We can never be 100% certain of anything. All we can do is to find the theory that best fits our obeservations, run experiments, and try to prove ourselves wrong. What's left over is meerly the model which fits the evidence we have collected thus far. That's all we can really hope for.

You mean...

[grub]

"What Happened 6001 Years Ago?"
Fixed that for you.

Re:I'll tell you what happened

[Spy der Mann]

I posted first

I thought Greedo posted first! You know, maybe it's the Big Bang special edition :P

IF

[zoomshorts]

Something can come from nothing, our definition of nothing will have to be revised.

Nothing, plus a little bit more ... perhaps?

Re:North of the North pole

[peragrin]

says the man who failed to understand the analogy.

you can not go north of the North Pole. Once you get to the north pole everything is quite literally south of you, no matter which way you go. If you leave the sphere in question(ie head into space) you no longer have a compass as the magentic field that the north pole is based on no longer exerts it's force on you.

What you think Astral(space) Navagation uses compasses for heading and bearing? That we can use the sun's magentic field t find our way across this planetary system?

But is LQG testable?

[WrongMonkey]

I was hoping that the article was going to propose an experiment that would confirm or deny loop quantum gravity, but it doesn't. AFAIK, LQG and string theory are not experimentally falsifiable theories, that has been one of the principle controversies. A lot of scientists (Philip Anderson for instance) don't think these its real science.

No Before

[WED Fan]

There is no "before".

There has to be a big bang to have a "before big bang".

Now, 6000 years ago, roughly, God spoke and the Universe lept into being.

All you techno-geeks need to accept that. Put away your computers. I have. I stopped using computers because they are the "Beast" (Beast is a Trademark of the RMS Corporation, a wholly, and holy, owned subsidary of FOSS, owners of the GNUniverse).

God will smite you computer using disbelievers for not accepting the 6000 year Universe. Your only salvation is to face Kentucky and believe.

What happened before the big bang?

[jollyreaper]

Dinner, a movie, and a whole lotta wine. Giggity-giggity-goo!

ereh ees ot gnihtoN

[mypalmike]

.gnola evom esaelP

Re:But time doesn't exists yet

[porkThreeWays]

I think it's really hard as humans to comprehend things we have no ways of describing in English. Time is a dimension and I think we just can't comprehend the idea of time not existing or being able to manipulate it. It's possible time didn't exist before the big bang. But again, these words "before" and "after" have to do with time. The best we can do right now is describe things in mathematical models.

Re:But time doesn't exists yet

[a-zarkon!]

There is an alternate theory that brings up two big questions: 1) Where did the Great Green Arkleseizure come from? 2) How much time do we have until the coming of the handkerchief.

ob

[edittard]

A load of turtles had a big argument about which one was going at the bottonm of the pile?

Big Crunch vs Cold Death

[WrongMonkey]

The theory that is proposed in the article is that our universe came from a former "crunched" universe. But the current observations of our universe indicate accelerating expansion which in turn implies that our universe will end in a cold death rather than a big crunch. That seems to be an unresolved contradiction. Does these mean that loop quantum gravity is incompatible with observation (which would conclude that LQG is not correct)? Or did the previous universe have such different laws of physics that it's fate was different than the fate of our universe?

Re:Big Crunch vs Cold Death

[Ambitwistor]

Bojowald's original "bounce" solution merely has a single crunch which leads to a single bang. It also ignored the cosmological constant, which is what leads to the eternally accelerating expansion (dark energy) now favored. This does not by itself mean that loop quantum cosmology is incompatible with observation. It is possible (although maybe odd) that the universe could expand forever after the Big Crunch of a single progenitor universe. However, more importantly, the simple and highly symmetric LQG solutions so far considered are much more idealized than the actual universe, so it's quite probable that no truly realistic LQG solution has yet been written down. It's just a first step, to be able to write down any quantum gravity solution capable of describing the Big Bang.

i never believed in the big bang

[circletimessquare]

or rather, if there was one, that it was a localized event. we talk about all of these dead ends in cosmology: black holes, from which nothing escapes, the heat death of the universe, where simple entropy reduces everything to luke warm death, the hubble constant, which describes everything as slowly expanding away from everything else. and we even talk about this birth of the universe. birth and death: doesn't that strike you as anthropomorphic?

i don't know. our current understanding of cosmology seems open-ended to me. i think it would be very arrogant for us if we believe we have seen all of the dynamics of the universe in play, that our model of the universe is anywhere near complete. i think there is phenomena about the functioning of the universe we are not aware of yet

the hubble constant: why does this have to describe the ENTIRE universe? why is it not merely a local expansion/ contraction? (when i say local, i'm referring to a location that is trillions of light years in diameter)

black holes: perhaps a black hole of massive enough size reaches some sort of physical constraint we can't even begin to understand, resulting in a "big bang", thereby renewing the universe... locally (where local, again, is extremely huge)

second law of thermodynamics: i think a localized "big bang" would put a new twist on this law

my disbelief in the big bang as describing the birth fo the ENTIRE universe stems from an instinct i have about the history of science:

1. at one time, people believed the world was flat

2. at one time, people believed the sun revolved aorund the earth

3. at one time, people believe humans were created in the image of god, above the other beasts

can you see where we are going? extrapoloate out from the various anthropomorphic and human-centric beliefs we have held in the past. and now look at our current understanding of what the big bang means about how the universe is supposed to resemble our birth/ death, and supposed to resemble our abrahamic religions and myths about creation

so the big bang seems very creationist to me, a vestige of the myths about a god creating us from dust and void. and yet these abrahamic beliefs are so ingrained in our collective culture, we still labor under that mentality when we make our scientific hypotheses. the whole idea of birth is so very anthropomorphic. the whole idea of death is so very anthropomorphic. yes, us humans need to be born, and to die. why does the universe?

in other words, projecting out from what the history of science has taught us about mankind being wrong about being the center of things, the obvious humbling projection of what we have learned about being wrong when we describe our world in human terms is that the universe is:

1. timeless. without ending and without beginning
2. infinite, in all directions

the irony of course, is that this belief of mine that hedges its bet against future cosmological discoveries not only puts me in some sort of futuristic vanguard, it also puts me in the middle of one of the central beliefs of one of the most ancient religions (i am not a jain, i just find it ironic and funny that one of the world's ancient religions might actually be way ahead of all of us in one of its tenets)

So Douglas Adams was right...

[Dekortage]

The universe DOES recreate itself, each time stranger than before...

Time is a vector, not a scalar

[Alzheimers]

I think that the problem we have is forming a mental image of time not as some quantity (5 minutes, for example) but as a scalar (the difference between 5 minutes ago and now, in the positive future direction).

We just don't talk or think about time having some of the same properties as physical space since we only experience it in one direction. Our lives are a filmstrip that doesn't roll backwards. What happened before the beginning of the tape? That's like asking if there was a universe before I was born?

I think we'd do a lot better to rename it something less associated with it's common useage, such as the Temporal axis. Then you can start to discuss what the properties of that axis are, without running into issues with metaphorical associations.

(see also: Free Software, Free as in Libre, not as in Gratis)

Re:Time is a vector, not a scalar

[pbhj]

>>> Then you can start to discuss what the properties of that axis are

So what do objects in that 4-space behave like outside of the defined region of your temporal axis?

Does that really help?

History of science point 3

[BytePusher]

"I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return." Ecclesiastes 3:18-20 (English Standard Version)

obDrWho

[Rob T Firefly]

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly... timey-wimey... stuff.

Re: Enter the Sphere

[Ucklak]

There are 3 'north' poles.

Only in the context of magnetic navigation does your comment relate to the magnetic north pole.
The magnetic pole is not fixed and is based upon the iron core of our planet. It has a deviation and changes over time and location.

There is the political north pole which cartography is based upon. This is where we get nautical measurements from. It is 5400 nautical miles from the North Pole to the equator.
90 degree right angle from pole to equator; 60 minutes each degree, 1 nautical mile per degree : 90*60 = 5400 nautical miles.

Then there is the axial or celestial 'North' pole which is where our 23 degree tilt comes from. That measurement is not a constant either as our planet has a `wobble`.

wrong

[circletimessquare]

"Scientists have made false statements in the past. Scientists are making statements. Therefore, scientists are making false statements."

should be

"People have made false anthropocentric statements in the past. People are making anthropocentric statements about the Universe now. Therefore, people are possibly making false statements."

Re:But time doesn't exists yet

[Short Circuit]

54? Methinks you meant 6 * 7.

So God Does Too Play Dice

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

From TFA:

>One implication of this "cosmic forgetfulness," as Bojowald calls it, is that history does not repeat itself-the fundamental properties of the current era of the universe are different from the last, Bojowald explained. "It's as if the universe forgot some of its properties and acquired new properties independent of what it had before," he told SPACE.com.

So not only does God play dice, but He re-rolls to get a better attribute set.

A graint of salt

[Ambitwistor]

This result is interesting within the context of loop quantum gravity, because it offers an approximation within which the Big Bang can be modeled directly. However, it's worth not losing sight of the fact that the LQG theory upon which it is based has serious issues with consistency. It is based on a non-standard quantization technique with no experimentally supported basis, its Hamiltonian constraint has never been solved (which renders any approximation based on that constraint suspect), and it suffers from potentially infinitely many quantization ambiguities (again, with no known and maybe no possible experimental method for singling out the correct quantization. Some of these concerns are summarized here. (Yes, it's written by string theorists, and yes, string theory has its own set of problems with experimentally selecting the "correct" solution. But the correctness of string theory aside, the objections raised in that article against LQG are valid.) It's very premature to suggest that LQG's picture of the Big Bang may be correct when the fundamental theory itself has serious unresolved problems.

science, philosophy, religion

[rajafarian]

In my time of studying things since I was little, I undertook the study of physics when I was eleven. When I was in college getting my BS in it I came to the conclusion that at the level where I was in my studies, physics turned to philosophy, for what do things like time mean anyway?

And then after studying philosphy on my own for a few years, I arrived at the conclusion that philosophy turns to religion because if we can never know these things for sure, we still have to make a decision how we are going to live our lives, and that is religion. In my opinion, real religion is when we consciously decide what to believe on our own (although it can be from reading about religions), fake religion is when someone makes the decision for us.

Why don't more people study Eastern religion's cosmologies? I think it's because people in general like information spoon fed to them instead of researching and processing it on their own. Western psychology is now appreciating many Buddhist ideas that can help certain people with psychological problems and many quantum physicists have felt that Buddhism may have good insights to the ultimate nature of reality. In my view any theory that does not take consciousness into account is incomplete and not worth my basing a belief system around.

Re:But time doesn't exists yet

[vertinox]

I think it's really hard as humans to comprehend things we have no ways of describing in English.

Well besides the fact that there are other languages in the universe besides English, but it is really hard for the human mind to comprehend really small numbers and really large numbers.

So it simply visualizes anything extremely small as 0 and anything exceedingly large (like the universe) as infinite.

But even then, the human mind cannot truly visual infinity without an approximation nor can it visualize nothingness. Well because by definition nothing does not exist so therefore you can imagine big empty space in your brain, but that is still something... and something is not nothing... and then you get a headache from trying to visualize nothingness and infinity cause it really isn't possible... ARGH!

Even then... Try to visualize yourself sitting bored in a room for 60 minutes and then imagine yourself there but times that lenght of time by several hundred thousand billions and imaging yourself watch the sun spin by and mountains rise and fall and seas form and dry up... And you still haven't even gotten to close to the scale of the big bang.

Maybe after sitting bored for several million trillion hours (or however many hours 14 billion years contains) then and only then can you get the scope of this time lapse.

Of course I've given myself another head ache because humans were not built to comprehend time more than tens of years time frame and simply even try to comprehend 1,000 years start to make me feel fuzzy.

Didn't M-Thoery already explain this...

[ToxicBanjo]

... as brane colisions without requiring a singularity, therefore showing time before the actual "bang"?

info:
Burt Ovrut M-Theory

The Big Bang -is- The Big Crunch

[Animaether]

How about this... the universe is collapsing on itself. As we speak. But it's also expanding. It just depends on your frame of reference.

To explain this in the easiest way I can, I'm going to have to move from the multidimensional to the more easily understood dimensions. Save you have a sphere.
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2081/asphereft7.j pg

That sphere has a top, and a bottom. Assume that at the top of that sphere, water is formed. This water will want to flow down that sphere to the very bottom of that sphere. In the case of our simple world - due to gravity, and gravity wants those water droplets to flow ever-faster toward that bottom, etc... ignore this bit about gravity except for the ever-faster.. they accelerate.

Now let's say you slice this sphere into strips going from the top, to the bottom. Like fancy orange peels.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/928/aslicedsphe rejxd8.jpg

Now if you uncurl all those strips, and align them all together at the top, you get a sort of radial spokes system of peels. The more strips you made, the cleaner the result, but what it comes down to is this. The top point of the sphere is still a point. But the bottom point of the sphere is now no longer a point - it is part of a large circular shape in a disc.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6959/anunfolded spherexj8.jpg

So if we had the same water droplets going from the top of the sphere to the bottom of the sphere, in this new disc-shape projection, then from the frame of reference of the top point - the center of the disc - the drops of water would appear to be continually diverging and accelerating outward. The Big Bang.

But here's the kicker. If you uncurl the strips and align them all together at the bottom and repeat the same thing - then a bunch of scattered around water droplets would appear to be accelerating towards it, and converging. The Big Crunch.

Just a thought - probably not original, but I don't remember reading anything on the subject.. it's not one I'm too interested in :) Graphics whipped up in 3dsmax (yeah, sorry - no Blender experience!)

Re:science, philosophy, religion

[UnknownSoldier]

> because if we can never know these things for sure
That's the only fallacy in your logic.

Beautiful post though.

> real religion is
Actually, "real" religion is putting your beliefs into action by the lifestyle you live. If you never do anything with your beliefs, they are just that, beliefs.

--
Teacher: "Question Authority!"
Student: "Says who!?"