Big bang Alteration Theory (nothing to do with Chrono Series)

[VincentGAU8]

Aaaahhhh... Zeal...

*starts to daydream*

i'll spend years in Zeal studying the arts, and when i'm ready, i'll assasinate queen Zeal!!
then rulership would be placed on Schala or Janus, and Zeal would live forever!!
hahaha!!

(sorry...  )

[Daniel Krispin]

Uh, since the Big Bang is the start of space/time, the phrase 'travel to' is fraught with an impossible paradox. Simply put, it can't be done. You cannot alter the original molecule as altering requires a temporal action which does not exist. It's along the same lines as the impossibility of knowing if the universe had a beginning or not. Technically, it's impossible to know, because it would require being able to perceive the start of space/time, which is a logical impossibility. All we can do is know that it is so old, at least. Basically, we know the universe is 12 billion years old. But we'll never be able to say exactly when it began because simply stating that is itself a contradiction. In the same way, altering the original molecule is an interesting thought experiment, but is a paradox.

However, altering things in the moments after the big bang is more within the realm of logical possibility.

[VincentGAU8]

Yeah, it is indeed impossible.. One *might* be able to travel back in time, be he/she can only go so far..
it will get more harder and harder for the time traveler once he approaches the Big Bang, the singularity of creation..

And isn't the Big Bang actually a small one? it made possible the creation of the basic building blocks of the Universe, and then inflated after these building blocks interacted with one another, thereby setting the motion for the expanding universe we see today.. I'm not sure about this though..

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

Well theory is it was INTENSELY COMPACT.

[VincentGAU8]

Yes, the universe was intensely compact, until cosmic inflation occured, and then the Universe started expanding at a huge rate..

and thanks to radical dreamer for putting this thread here in the general discussion forum..

[Kebrel]

"Real programmers set the universal constants at the start such that the universe evolves to contain the disk with the data they want."

[VincentGAU8]

Whoa, Kebrel.. what was that?
i did not know there was a connection between programmers and the Universe..

[BROJ]

and maybe someone will develop a multiverse traveling machine, and we could visit the Chronoverse for real!!

The question is: Would our essence be compatible with that universe or would our existence decay into energy?

You cannot alter the original molecule as altering requires a temporal action which does not exist.

Higher dimensions than time, if they exist, would be required to change such a thing.

It's along the same lines as the impossibility of knowing if the universe had a beginning or not.

Beginnings and endings are relative to checkpoints anyways; since we are assuming the Big Bang happened then yes--it had a beginning.

we know the universe is 12 billion years old.

A closer estimate would be 13.7 billion years old, but I'm not arguing--just noting. 

we'll never be able to say exactly when it began because simply stating that is itself a contradiction.

How so... when we know what happened down to the Planck time unit(10^-43 seconds) after the Big Bang; there is, however, an intrinsic truth to what you say, but only because of a technicality--Planck time units aren't divisible, and since one must approach the Big Bang to reach it--there's a roadblock--an 'event horizon', so to speak.

However, altering things in the moments after the big bang is more within the realm of logical possibility.

Only to the extent that the Butterfly Effect will allow... However one could, in theory, 'destroy' the known universe by causing the matter/anti-matter cycle to be infinite, causing the universe to be a sea of pure, 'cold' energy.

Well theory is it was INTENSELY COMPACT.

Rather it was 'infinitely compact'; otherwise known as a singularity.

"Real programmers set the universal constants at the start such that the universe evolves to contain the disk with the data they want."

Good comic, Kebrel. 

Whoa, Kebrel.. what was that?
i did not know there was a connection between programmers and the Universe..

Initial conditions are a reality in both the universe *and* programming.

[VincentGAU8]

Hmm.. the Chronoverse seems to have the same elements of space-time as ours do, and also the same laws of physics.. we'd be compatible.. Well, the Chrono world might not even be in a different universe because of that, maybe it is somewhere in OUR universe.. it is certainly big enough, and we cannot possibly explore every nook and cranny of it.. But i shudder to think that if it was indeed the case, then members of the Lavos species might be headed for our Earth right now!!! 

And the age of our Universe, although more reasonable around 13.7 billion years old, might still be as early as 15 billion years, or as late as 11 billion years.. mathematical concepts clearly allow for a large margin of error, because any value would, however accurate, still not be the true value; i mean, we can never be precise enough...

And how would one create such large amounts of antimatter to destroy the Universe? not with today's accelerators..
And how would such a cycle be infinite? only if there are likewise infinite, equal amounts of matter and antimatter...
In a sense, matter would annihilate equal amounts of antimatter, turning them into energy. but if matter/antimatter weren't infinite, then there would come a point that there will be nothing left to destroy, please correct me if i'm mistaken.. But i like the notion of existence as pure energy though..

[BROJ]

And how would one create such large amounts of antimatter to destroy the Universe? not with today's accelerators..
And how would such a cycle be infinite? only if there are likewise infinite, equal amounts of matter and antimatter...
In a sense, matter would annihilate equal amounts of antimatter, turning them into energy. but if matter/antimatter weren't infinite, then there would come a point that there will be nothing left to destroy, please correct me if i'm mistaken.. But i like the notion of existence as pure energy though..

It is now thought that symmetry was broken in the early universe during a period of baryogenesis, when matter-antimatter symmetry was violated. Standard Big Bang cosmology tells us that the universe initially contained equal amounts of matter and antimatter: however particles and antiparticles evolved slightly differently. It was found that a particular heavy unstable particle, which is its own antiparticle, decays slightly more often to positrons (e+) than to electrons (e−). How this accounts for the preponderance of matter over antimatter has not been completely explained. The Standard Model of particle physics does have a way of accommodating a difference between the evolution of matter and antimatter, but it falls short of explaining the net excess of matter in the universe by about 10 orders of magnitude.

Only to the extent that the Butterfly Effect will allow... However one could, in theory, 'destroy' the known universe by causing the matter/anti-matter cycle to be infinite, causing the universe to be a sea of pure, 'cold' energy.

I meant destroy metaphorically; hence the ' '... And by "infinite" I meant the process would be recursive(i.e. X-1+1 --> Xⁱ+1-1 --> [...]).

[Burning Zeppelin]

Interesting. I think you're right with Factor 2, that eventually you'd die. Not only because you'd be compressed, but because travelling back in time, unless you do it through some alternative dimension, would mean you'd become unborn.

[VincentGAU8]

Indeed, matter/antimatter symmetry was broken because matter had 1 more unit than anti-matter, hence giving rise to the matter based Universe we see today, from what i've read.. It is also possible that there are other Universes that are made up wholly of antimatter, when the symmetry is violated to the antimatter's favor. But i do get your point somehow..

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

I pray this doesn't turn into the "Oh No.  Oh God." thread,  but I'm not 100% sold on science as a whole.  Most of it's right, yes, but a lot of the details that take forever to discern (ie - carbon dating) are not exactly completely accurate.  There's actually a large margin of error with carbon dating, taking into account unknown environmental variables that bombarded the tested subject, and results can sometimes be millions of years off. 

That's why a scientist usually goes to multiple scientists to have multiple carbon dating tests.

[placidchap]

Who cares when and how the univerise started.  The past is the past, what is done is done.  Look forward!  [And live in the moment!]  But if you insist, Belthasar probably had something to do with the supposed "Bag Bing".

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

I'm actually in the same line of thinking, placidchap.  For instance, I could care less about creationism.  We were created.  Good enough for me.