There was obviously SOMETHING before The Big Bang... something outside of our 3 Dimensional Universe.
There are several theories along those lines, but no way has yet been imagined to design any experiments to confirm them.
There are still things in this universe that we cannot perceive with our 3D dimensional sense and instruments. Someday, we may develop the mathematics and instrumentation model those theories .... or completely different ones.
Until then, it remains tantalizing speculation.
By paragraph:
- Yes, especially for those arguing that the entire Universe resulted from the Bang, "3D" or otherwise
- True, but only 3 more generations of ultra-super-duper atom smashers at a cost of 20, 100, and 600 trillion dollars will Shirley do the trick.
- I think our observational senses are great. We just need to stop the madness and pick back up where we left off, before Einstein distracted everyone with space warpages and silly particles for every occasion,.. experimentally researching the field of electrical science.
- Yup.
But before worrying overmuch about our possible dimensional sense limitations, we should seriously review some of our basic physics premises to ferret out some of the accumulated, distracting rot that's been holding us back. I'll provide just one example for now and hope others can add more of the most obvious ones.
Dividing energy into two distinct classes, namely "potential energy" and "kinetic energy," serves no useful purpose. It just confuses everyone and thereby everything involved. Energy is just energy. We commonly define it as "the ability to do work" but more simply it's
potential to do work or just
potential. Defining "kinetic energy" as "energy in motion" as we've been taught is just crazy. Motion is always relative and where said motion involves work, the energy is expended simultaneously so there's never any net accumulation of energy (or potential).
Dropping a ball is not work. As a ball falls it gains momentum (not energy) due to its increasing speed. In fact, it supposedly loses classical "potential energy" as it approaches the Earth's surface or any other point of impact. A falling ball performs no work until it's moment of impact where it finally does some work, incrementally exchanging some of its momentum to produce heat until it either comes to rest or rebounds back up with reduced momentum. At each increment the ball's
potential (to do work) remains strictly a function of its height and momentum, never its "motion."
It's mass, elasticity, size (when subject to friction), speed, and direction all "potentially" influence the work a falling ball can perform at any given moment. But at no point does its "motion" actually add anything to its potential (to do work). Neither does its "motion" when someone performs the work of lifting back up again.
