3 ms·

If the laws of physics can drift over time, might that explain the Big Bang?

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
I don't think so. There was no time before the Big Bang, so it's not like the laws of physics have anywhere to drift from such that they're in a bang-causing configuration at t=0.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  I think that’s an overly strong statement. There’s a theory that the Big Bang followed a Big Crunch from a “previous” universe [1]. Or our universe is a black hole within another higher dimension universe since the edge of our universe looks a lot like what we would think the event horizon looks like within a universe [2] It’s correct to say that the time of our universe begins at the Big Bang, at least as far as we can measure it in any way and according to the currently dominant theories, but there are ways that it would make sense to talk about a time before the Big Bang and what caused it to happen. [1] https://www.universetoday.com/38195/oscillating-universe-theory/ https://www.universetoday.com/38195/oscillating-universe-the... [2] https://www.discovery.com/science/Universe-Inside-Every-Black-Hole https://www.discovery.com/science/Universe-Inside-Every-Blac...
  - toenail 2y ago
    > There’s a theory that the Big Bang followed a Big Crunch Does that theory come with a testable hypothesis?
    - vlovich123 2y ago
      Yes and it’s likely to be falsified. But us living within a singularity I believe is a consequence of string theory if I recall correctly.
    - ForOldHack 2y ago
      Most unfortunatly, there is the sawtooth cosmogony put forth by Joe Haldeman: if we harness the entire power of Jupiter converted to energy, and recreate the big bang, it's game over here, and everything restarts. The test of course, trivizes,it. To destroy our universe, and the we know wheather, there is a steady state, a forever expanding, a saw tooth, or a wimper. ( see Dr Fred Hoyle), or, as our brains grow freely in epanded capacity, something so radically beyond our current comprehension that it will leave us in a pseudo-comoyose slack jaw state for a very long time. "A watch maker, without ever opening a watch may make some very ingenious ideas about how a watch works, but without opening the watch, he may never know the truth." -Einstien The big bang came with the presence of background radiation, in a non-uniform way pointing to the area in the Hercules constealtion. The crunch can come with a slowing of expansion or a change in the constants that hold our current paradiem together. This work is seriously cutting edge.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    I think it would be clearer if such theories were described as claiming that a certain bang wasn't actually the big one. I suppose these are equivalent, but one feels like a historical distinction while the other feels like a thermodynamic one and I think it's thermodynamics that contrasts the theories better.
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    Big Crunch/Cyclic Universe theories are generally considered to be improbable based on our current understanding of the universe. That there is no time before the big bang (possibly with some qualifiers to define the big bang, start of the universe, etc.) is the overwhelmingly prevailing view of modern cosmologists, from how I understand things.
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  To flesh out my thought, I'm thinking something must have changed to make the universe go from a previous stable state to the BANG state. A weakening of some force keeping things together seems as likely as anything to me.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    That sounds like a fine idea to me. I'm just trying to point out that if it's true, then that bang wasn't the big one. We can have several very large bangs, but there can be only one Big Bang™, and nothing comes before it. This is for the same reason that Harry Potter is a wizard, it's not about evidence, it's just defined that way.
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    Many argue there is no "before" the bang state. Time and space might well have started with the big bang. There would be an absolute zero point in time, and nothing could be before that just like nothing can be colder than 0K. For a while there was also the theory that the universe is cyclical: it eventually collapses and from that compressed state a new big bang is born. That seems very unlikely with what we know right now though. Then there are various forms of the multiverse theory where are kind of spontaneously created in a continuous process. Each universe experiences a big bang in the moment it is created, so talking about "before the big bang" only makes sense outside the universe But I don't think anything rules out a universe laying dormant and then something triggering the big bang either. Changing fundamental constants might well be that something. They don't even have to change continuously or frequently for this to work As you might have guessed, testing any of these is really difficult. Not necessarily impossible, but really really difficult
- Zamicol 2y ago
  Cosmic inflation is a large difficulty for the big bang as there is no mechanics explaining its process.

I don't think so. There was no time before the Big Bang, so it's not like the laws of physics have anywhere to drift from such that they're in a bang-causing configuration at t=0.

vlovich123 2y ago
I think that’s an overly strong statement. There’s a theory that the Big Bang followed a Big Crunch from a “previous” universe [1]. Or our universe is a black hole within another higher dimension universe since the edge of our universe looks a lot like what we would think the event horizon looks like within a universe [2] It’s correct to say that the time of our universe begins at the Big Bang, at least as far as we can measure it in any way and according to the currently dominant theories, but there are ways that it would make sense to talk about a time before the Big Bang and what caused it to happen. [1] https://www.universetoday.com/38195/oscillating-universe-theory/ https://www.universetoday.com/38195/oscillating-universe-the... [2] https://www.discovery.com/science/Universe-Inside-Every-Black-Hole https://www.discovery.com/science/Universe-Inside-Every-Blac...
- toenail 2y ago
  > There’s a theory that the Big Bang followed a Big Crunch Does that theory come with a testable hypothesis?
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    Yes and it’s likely to be falsified. But us living within a singularity I believe is a consequence of string theory if I recall correctly.
  - ForOldHack 2y ago
    Most unfortunatly, there is the sawtooth cosmogony put forth by Joe Haldeman: if we harness the entire power of Jupiter converted to energy, and recreate the big bang, it's game over here, and everything restarts. The test of course, trivizes,it. To destroy our universe, and the we know wheather, there is a steady state, a forever expanding, a saw tooth, or a wimper. ( see Dr Fred Hoyle), or, as our brains grow freely in epanded capacity, something so radically beyond our current comprehension that it will leave us in a pseudo-comoyose slack jaw state for a very long time. "A watch maker, without ever opening a watch may make some very ingenious ideas about how a watch works, but without opening the watch, he may never know the truth." -Einstien The big bang came with the presence of background radiation, in a non-uniform way pointing to the area in the Hercules constealtion. The crunch can come with a slowing of expansion or a change in the constants that hold our current paradiem together. This work is seriously cutting edge.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  I think it would be clearer if such theories were described as claiming that a certain bang wasn't actually the big one. I suppose these are equivalent, but one feels like a historical distinction while the other feels like a thermodynamic one and I think it's thermodynamics that contrasts the theories better.
- cthalupa 2y ago
  Big Crunch/Cyclic Universe theories are generally considered to be improbable based on our current understanding of the universe. That there is no time before the big bang (possibly with some qualifiers to define the big bang, start of the universe, etc.) is the overwhelmingly prevailing view of modern cosmologists, from how I understand things.
BurningFrog 2y ago
To flesh out my thought, I'm thinking something must have changed to make the universe go from a previous stable state to the BANG state. A weakening of some force keeping things together seems as likely as anything to me.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  That sounds like a fine idea to me. I'm just trying to point out that if it's true, then that bang wasn't the big one. We can have several very large bangs, but there can be only one Big Bang™, and nothing comes before it. This is for the same reason that Harry Potter is a wizard, it's not about evidence, it's just defined that way.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  Many argue there is no "before" the bang state. Time and space might well have started with the big bang. There would be an absolute zero point in time, and nothing could be before that just like nothing can be colder than 0K. For a while there was also the theory that the universe is cyclical: it eventually collapses and from that compressed state a new big bang is born. That seems very unlikely with what we know right now though. Then there are various forms of the multiverse theory where are kind of spontaneously created in a continuous process. Each universe experiences a big bang in the moment it is created, so talking about "before the big bang" only makes sense outside the universe But I don't think anything rules out a universe laying dormant and then something triggering the big bang either. Changing fundamental constants might well be that something. They don't even have to change continuously or frequently for this to work As you might have guessed, testing any of these is really difficult. Not necessarily impossible, but really really difficult
Zamicol 2y ago
Cosmic inflation is a large difficulty for the big bang as there is no mechanics explaining its process.