What happen before the Big Bang?

[LostLabyrinths]

Same qustion as the tittle.

[iNow]

That's a tough one. Since the concept of "time" itself came into existence at the Big Bang (spacetime itself was created), then the idea of "before" is not only a challenge, but actually undefined. The idea of "before" doesn't make sense since time didn't exist before then (according to the BB model).

[north]

That's a tough one. Since the concept of "time" itself came into existence at the Big Bang (spacetime itself was created), then the idea of "before" is not only a challenge, but actually undefined. The idea of "before" doesn't make sense since time didn't exist before then (according to the BB model).

 

time is irrelevant it plays not part in the " before " BB really or in any discussin about existence really

 

what is relevant is whether energy/matter existed before BB and they most certainly did

 

otherwise you get into the something vs nothing discussion

 

of which something always wins

[iNow]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, north (despite the fact that I vehemently disagree). Do you have any support for your assertions, or are you expecting everyone to simply take your (relatively incoherent) word for it?

[north]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, north (despite the fact that I vehemently disagree). Do you have any support for your assertions, or are you expecting everyone to simply take your (relatively incoherent) word for it?

 

well lets start here ;

 

can nothing ever produce something

 

if nothing can to you

 

define nothing

[iNow]

Yeah... you're still not winning me over.

[north]

Yeah... you're still not winning me over.

 

and the Reason is ?

[Edtharan]

can nothing ever produce something

Well sort of. According to the Uncertainty principle it can. There can spontaneously arise enough energy in a location to create a particle pair. These then have to annihilate very quickly and go back to nothing.

 

So yes, something can be created from nothing.

[north]

Well sort of. According to the Uncertainty principle it can. There can spontaneously arise enough energy in a location to create a particle pair. These then have to annihilate very quickly and go back to nothing.

 

so then nothing was not really nothing in the first place

 

since nothing it seems has potential

 

pure nothing has NO potential whatsoever

 

 

 

So yes, something can be created from nothing.

 

no not really

[iNow]

Stop trolling.

[Edtharan]

so then nothing was not really nothing in the first place

 

since nothing it seems has potential

 

pure nothing has NO potential whatsoever

No you misunderstand. You are applying the very same assumption (that something can't come from nothing) that this refutes to prove it wrong.

 

It is like saying the sky is not blue because it is not green. It just makes no sense.

 

It is not just matter that can appear from nothing. Energy, as well as space and time can appear from nothing. If the same equations that allow matter to appear from nothing are true (and they have been shown through experiment to be not untrue), then applying those same formulas to space, energy and time also allows them to appear from nothing.

 

Now, if those formulas could not be applied to matter as well as space, time and energy, then certain physical laws would actually produce one kind of effect. If it does then it would produce a different result. Experiments have confirmed that the results show that it is the second case (that those formulas apply not only to matter, but energy space and time as well).

 

The only conclusion is that because these formulas allow matter, energy, space and time to appear form nothing, and the result of experiments confirm that this is the case, it means that the Universe can actually appear from nothing (and it can return to nothing as well).

 

Now for the reasons it does apply to space and time and energy.

 

First of all, energy is easy. Einstein's formula E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 (or it's simplified: E=MC^2) states that Energy and Mass are related and can be converted from one to the other (which has been confirmed experimentally).

 

Now the uncertainty principle states that if you know the position of a particle you are uncertain as to it's momentum (the way it is moving). This too has been confirmed experimentally.

 

But, Relativity states that Space and Time are the same and combined into a Space/Time. This too has been confirmed experimentally (GPS systems need to take this into account or they would not be accurate).

 

Now, if we have an absolutely know Space/Time location (say an infinitely small singularity), we are certain as to it's space and time. However, this means that we are completely uncertain as to it's energy.

 

If we are certain of its energy, then we must be uncertain of its Space/Time extents.

 

When these are applied together, what comes out is that space, time, energy and matter can all appear from nothing.

[ydoaPs]

since nothing it seems has potential

 

pure nothing has NO potential whatsoever

 

[math]{\Delta}E{\Delta}t{\geq}\frac{\hbar}{2}[/math] so, on a small enough time scale, the uncertainty in energy is sufficiently large for particle-antiparticle creation. So, something CAN come from nothing....for a short time.

[Gilded]

"Nothingness" isn't exactly as much of a physical concept as it is a very abstract, human concept. I wouldn't say a "perfect" vacuum is nothing, as it has various characteristics that we can observe.

[Dark matter]

an equilibrum of energy?

[Arch2008]

Energy and matter are the same. Energy has mass. Matter has mass. Mass causes gravity. If you rocket to the moon, the rocket’s energy pushes you up and gravity pulls you down. Therefore, gravity has the effect of negative energy. Positive energy plus negative energy equals zero. Everything in the universe plus its own gravity equals zero energy. Therefore, you can create the universe with zero energy, i.e., nothing, because the universe is still zero energy (nothing).

 

We do not know if there was time before the Big Bang event, but we will know it someday. Scientists are using data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe to determine if something happened prior to the event that caused it.

[granpa]

time began at the big bang. at no time did 'nothing' ever exist. therefore something didnt come from nothing.

[Martin]

What happened before the Big Bang?

 

Book about this coming out in April 2009.

A collection of recent writing on this by 20 or so experts.

http://www.springer.com/astronomy/general+relativity/book/978-3-540-71422-4?detailsPage=toc

 

Several different points of view. All agree in the sense that they don't think of the Big Bang as the beginning.

 

for a while people thought that but the pendulum is swinging back the other way. the Big Bang is being dethroned as "the moment of creation" or as some used to say "the beginning of time"

 

LostLabyrinths, we can't say very much at this point, in answer to your question. There are several models that go back before that event. Astronomers have to find ways to test them. there will probably be a controversy about this in the next few months, or 7 months from now when the book comes out. the controversy could get out into public media, or just go on within scientific communities. Either way we'll probably hear about it.

But at the moment I don't think there is much to say.

 

Here is the Amazon page for the book

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Big-Bang-Prospects-Collection/dp/3540714227

[north]

Stop trolling.

 

I asked you a question and if this trolling to you then so be it

 

define nothing

 

I want to know how you define nothing

 

[math]{\Delta}E{\Delta}t{\geq}\frac{\hbar}{2}[/math] so, on a small enough time scale, the uncertainty in energy is sufficiently large for particle-antiparticle creation. So, something CAN come from nothing....for a short time.

 

look this how I define nothing ;

 

nothing has no space ( no place to manifest ) , no ability to change ( or time for those of you who perfer ) , no depth and no breadth or therefore no dimensions

 

ALL of these properties of which something has

[iNow]

define nothing

 

I want to know how you define nothing

 

I really don't care what you want. Stop trolling.

[north]

No you misunderstand. You are applying the very same assumption (that something can't come from nothing) that this refutes to prove it wrong.

 

It is like saying the sky is not blue because it is not green. It just makes no sense.

 

no it does't

 

 

 

 

It is not just matter that can appear from nothing. Energy, as well as space and time can appear from nothing. If the same equations that allow matter to appear from nothing are true (and they have been shown through experiment to be not untrue), then applying those same formulas to space, energy and time also allows them to appear from nothing.

 

but from a physical point of view , forget the equations for a moment , this makes no sense does it ?

 

objectively I mean

 

 

 

Now, if those formulas could not be applied to matter as well as space, time and energy, then certain physical laws would actually produce one kind of effect. If it does then it would produce a different result. Experiments have confirmed that the results show that it is the second case (that those formulas apply not only to matter, but energy space and time as well).

 

then what appears to be nothing where those equations were applied is not true

 

there was always something there in the first place

 

thats my point

 

 

 

 

The only conclusion is that because these formulas allow matter, energy, space and time to appear form nothing, and the result of experiments confirm that this is the case, it means that the Universe can actually appear from nothing (and it can return to nothing as well).

 

you see this is part of the pervasive thinking out there that " equations allow this or that " this thinking is erroneous . in reality it is the physical Universe which ALLOWS the equations to be correct

 

thats like the old philosophical argument that we produce the Universe , which of course is wrong

 

 

 

 

 

Now for the reasons it does apply to space and time and energy.

 

First of all, energy is easy. Einstein's formula E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 (or it's simplified: E=MC^2) states that Energy and Mass are related and can be converted from one to the other (which has been confirmed experimentally).

 

Now the uncertainty principle states that if you know the position of a particle you are uncertain as to it's momentum (the way it is moving). This too has been confirmed experimentally.

 

perhaps but the uncertainty principle is based on the energy of the particle

 

but the less energy a particle has the position and momentum can be known

 

 

 

 

But, Relativity states that Space and Time are the same and combined into a Space/Time. This too has been confirmed experimentally (GPS systems need to take this into account or they would not be accurate).

 

just mathematics , grid mathematics

 

which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about

 

Now, if we have an absolutely know Space/Time location (say an infinitely small singularity), we are certain as to it's space and time. However, this means that we are completely uncertain as to it's energy.

 

If we are certain of its energy, then we must be uncertain of its Space/Time extents.

 

When these are applied together, what comes out is that space, time, energy and matter can all appear from nothing.

 

mathematically

 

but to the object(s) they were always there , something , its just that you trying to find them , " appear " is the key word here

 

mathematics does not make or create energy/matter EVER it discovers

[Martin]

Stop trolling.

I asked you a question and if this trolling to you then so be it

 

define nothing

 

I want to know how you define nothing

 

 

 

look this how I define nothing ;

 

nothing has no space ( no place to manifest ) , no ability to change ( or time for those of you who perfer ) , no depth and no breadth or therefore no dimensions

 

ALL of these properties of which something has

 

Hi North,

It has been suggested you are overly argumentative---more interested in stirring controversy than in progressing towards some conclusions. I don't know if that is true. I can't go back into old discussion at this point. So I have no opinion. I refrain from opinion at this point.

 

But going forward, so I can learn what you are thinking about, let me ask you a question. why are you interested in nothing?

 

Could this be a straw man or a dead horse? Or a horse that left town last week?

 

Are you under the impression that expansion cosmology claims that the universe started with the Big Bang? Do you think that scientists as a group claim to know that the BB came out of nothing?

 

Cosmology has changed quite a lot in recent years---one new feature being the emergence of quantum cosmology (QC) resolving the classical singularity and running the models back further in time. Talking about nothing seems to be pretty much irrelevant now.

 

But from time to time we get deluded people here at SFN who seem to think they are on a crusade to expose the fallacy of ideas they think are prevalent in conventional science but which, in fact, are not.

 

It is hard to figure them out. Undoubtably some must be trolls (but that's not my department.) Others may be sincere but relying on out-of-date information. Others have gotten unreliable information about what scientists believe from a certain type of Religious website. Others may just have a lot of intellectual testosterone and want to debate stuff. I'm not a psychologist. I've got limited time and intelligence and I simply can not figure most of these people out. I'm mostly just tempted to leave them alone and let other SFN folks cope, if there are problems. And I have no idea where you fit in to that catalog, if you do at all.

 

But I will say this. It would help if you asked more questions and tried to find out more about today's Big Bang models---there is lots to read although very little that is purely popular written with zero math. You have to do some selective scanning to get essential content. It would help if you were willing to read some contemporary reseach papers (skipping the mathematical parts) to get an idea of what people are working on now.

It would help if you stopped arguing about something out of nothing that is irrelevant and that we've heard so much of in past years. That's just my personal take---not as SFN staff, purely private---other folks may have a completely different reaction which is fine with me.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Martin

[north]

Hi North,

It has been suggested you are overly argumentative---more interested in stirring controversy than in progressing towards some conclusions. I don't know if that is true. I can't go back into old discussion at this point. So I have no opinion. I refrain from opinion at this point.

 

Hi Martin

 

I'm I overly argumentative ? some may think so but not really just questioning the Reasoning behind some ideas , its my way

 

I've been doing this for about 5 yrs now and noticed that there are some very misguided ideas

 

 

 

 

 

But going forward, so I can learn what you are thinking about, let me ask you a question. why are you interested in nothing?

 

this one of the misguided ideas that something can come from nothing it can't ( not just here but on other sites as well , manytimes )

 

and it keeps coming up , unfortunatly

 

therefore my response to the concept of nothing

 

 

Could this be a straw man or a dead horse? Or a horse that left town last week?

 

it keeps coming up what can I say

 

Are you under the impression that expansion cosmology claims that the universe started with the Big Bang?

 

yes

 

how can I help it anytime there is a program about cosmology the Big-Bang comes up

 

 

 

Do you think that scientists as a group claim to know that the BB came out of nothing?

 

no

 

 

Cosmology has changed quite a lot in recent years---one new feature being the emergence of quantum cosmology (QC) resolving the classical singularity and running the models back further in time. Talking about nothing seems to be pretty much irrelevant now.

 

good if talking about nothing has become irrelevant I'm all for it

 

but some people still think about " nothing " however

 

 

 

 

But from time to time we get deluded people here at SFN who seem to think they are on a crusade to expose the fallacy of ideas they think are prevalent in conventional science but which, in fact, are not.

 

you are alluding to myself I think here

 

no problem

 

I'm ultimately after the truth , whether that means I disagree or agree with conventional science or mainstream science so be it

 

and my thought process is Reason first logic latter

 

the difference is that Reason gathers in knowledge and derives a conclusion

and logic is the consequence of the reasonable conclusion

 

 

It is hard to figure them out. Undoubtably some must be trolls (but that's not my department.) Others may be sincere but relying on out-of-date information. Others have gotten unreliable information about what scientists believe from a certain type of Religious website. Others may just have a lot of intellectual testosterone and want to debate stuff. I'm not a psychologist. I've got limited time and intelligence and I simply can not figure most of these people out. I'm mostly just tempted to leave them alone and let other SFN folks cope, if there are problems. And I have no idea where you fit in to that catalog, if you do at all.

 

hopefully none of the above , at least I certaintly wouldn't want to be

 

But I will say this. It would help if you asked more questions and tried to find out more about today's Big Bang models---there is lots to read although very little that is purely popular written with zero math. You have to do some selective scanning to get essential content. It would help if you were willing to read some contemporary reseach papers (skipping the mathematical parts) to get an idea of what people are working on now.

It would help if you stopped arguing about something out of nothing that is irrelevant and that we've heard so much of in past years. That's just my personal take---not as SFN staff, purely private---other folks may have a completely different reaction which is fine with me.

 

Martin I thank-you for post , for it seems it was needed as to what I was about and for staff and others to understand where I'm coming from

 

its my fault of course for any misunderstanding towards myself . I tend to come in heavy and fast

 

but I do enjoy thought throughly , I always have

 

hence my posts

 

but to be fair also to myself though , just so that you understand as well , I am on other sites as well and you see certain patterns of thinking by many people from many different perspectives , they are all trying to figure it out in there own way and I'm use to that

 

north

[Martin]

good if talking about nothing has become irrelevant I'm all for it

 

Good. Maybe I can find some accessible research papers for you, to use in discussion with people who think there is some weight of scientific evidence or authoritative opinion backing the claim that nothing came before BB.

 

There isn't. It's an open question, running models back before BB has become an active field of research. But nobody should be claiming one model is right and the others wrong--the new models need to be tested with observational data. some preliminary ideas of how to do that are beginning to appear but it will take a while. If I sound too confident on occasion, it is a mistake.

 

can't always believe popular TV science shows---often some years out of date.

 

Here is something to try. There was recently a big international conference in the UK called QGQG (quantum geometry and quantum gravity) and

a prominent QC guy spoke. Audio and slides are available. You can download his slides and then listen to the audio and scroll thru the slides as he talks.

I will give you the whole conference menu and then specific links to this one guy's audio and slides (which you can also get off the menu)

the speaker is Abhay Ashtekar.

 

The menu is here

http://echo.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/qg/wiki/index.php/QGsquared-slides

 

Ashtekar gave the first talk on Tuesday, so the links are easy to find there on the menu there on the menu. But I will get the direct links anyway. They might come in handy.

 

Here are the slides pdf

http://echo.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/qg/wiki/images/d/d9/AshtekarAbhay1234.pdf

 

Here's the mp3 audio

http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/research/conferences/qg2_2008_quantum_geometry_and_quantum_gravity_conference/audible/02Tuesday/AbhayAshtekar.mp3

 

I don't know if this would be at all useful to you. It's recent (July 2008) the guy is a leader (recently elected president of the profession association that cosmologists and General Relativity experts belong to---elected at their last international meeting a year ago in Sydney Australia. He has the largest most active research institute in cosmology and quantum gravity in the USA etc etc so this talk is representative of where a certain field is right now). The talk may be useless to you or not. You can sample it and see. Or not, as you choose.

 

If this isnt right for you maybe I will think of something else later.

=====================

 

Oh yeah, the point is that for this guy---and for hundreds of other experts actively researching the BB and what led up to it, the BB is not the beginning of existence. It is something to model how it happened and what conditions preceded etc etc. It is just an extension of physics, running the model back farther. Because now the model doesn't break down and flash *tilt* and stop computing, the way it used to. So there is no singularity and you just go back and study various possible cases of what preceded. So I'm giving you the links so you can see what kind of things this guy, who is sort of representative of an area of current research, is saying.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Martin

[north]

Good. Maybe I can find some accessible research papers for you, to use in discussion with people who think there is some weight of scientific evidence or authoritative opinion backing the claim that nothing came before BB.

 

There isn't. It's an open question, running models back before BB has become an active field of research. But nobody should be claiming one model is right and the others wrong--the new models need to be tested with observational data. some preliminary ideas of how to do that are beginning to appear but it will take a while. If I sound too confident on occasion, it is a mistake.

 

you are Refreshing Martin , you truly are Refreshing

 

 

 

 

can't always believe popular TV science shows---often some years out of date.

 

why is it then allowed that these programs can even be produced without current info ?

 

damned frustrating really

 

Here is something to try. There was recently a big international conference in the UK called QGQG (quantum geometry and quantum gravity) and

a prominent QC guy spoke. Audio and slides are available. You can download his slides and then listen to the audio and scroll thru the slides as he talks.

I will give you the whole conference menu and then specific links to this one guy's audio and slides (which you can also get off the menu)

the speaker is Abhay Ashtekar.

 

The menu is here

http://echo.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/qg/wiki/index.php/QGsquared-slides

 

Ashtekar gave the first talk on Tuesday, so the links are easy to find there on the menu there on the menu. But I will get the direct links anyway. They might come in handy.

 

Here are the slides pdf

http://echo.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/qg/wiki/images/d/d9/AshtekarAbhay1234.pdf

 

Here's the mp3 audio

http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/research/conferences/qg2_2008_quantum_geometry_and_quantum_gravity_conference/audible/02Tuesday/AbhayAshtekar.mp3

 

I don't know if this would be at all useful to you. It's recent (July 2008) the guy is a leader (recently elected president of the profession association that cosmologists and General Relativity experts belong to---elected at their last international meeting a year ago in Sydney Australia. He has the largest most active research institute in cosmology and quantum gravity in the USA etc etc so this talk is representative of where a certain field is right now). The talk may be useless to you or not. You can sample it and see. Or not, as you choose.

 

If this isnt right for you maybe I will think of something else later.

=====================

 

Oh yeah, the point is that for this guy---and for hundreds of other experts actively researching the BB and what led up to it, the BB is not the beginning of existence. It is something to model how it happened and what conditions preceded etc etc. It is just an extension of physics, running the model back farther. Because now the model doesn't break down and flash *tilt* and stop computing, the way it used to. So there is no singularity and you just go back and study various possible cases of what preceded. So I'm giving you the links so you can see what kind of things this guy, who is sort of representative of an area of current research, is saying.

 

should be interesting

 

thanks

 

north

[iNow]

why is it then allowed that these programs can even be produced without current info ?

 

damned frustrating really

 

They can produce anything they want. If TV were nothing but a reflection of present day scientific accuracy, then we clearly wouldn't have shows like Ghost Hunters. Also, there's a very good chance that the data they share WAS current when they made the program. That's another challenge with TV. Despite our perception of motion in television, it really is a stamp in time from when it was produced.