what was there before Big Bang?

[*puffy* japanisthebest]

What created Big Bang? What created the thing that created Big Bang? And why is there something rather than nothing?

hmmm :unsure: i burst my brain thinking about... what was before the big bang...if there was no big bang...what was before that... and how would space go on forever... but i think the big bang is all part of a cycle that keeps going... that this big bang happened in another universe... or that before the big bang was the end of OUR universe... i think it could be a big cycle of the same universe dying and being born

[The french tourist]

What created Big Bang? What created the thing that created Big Bang? And why is there something rather than nothing?

 

Well I'd like you to correct me if I'm wrong but i read a french book about "The origin of the universe" whose autor Etienne Klein, is a well known physician in France (professor in Centrale). And he said we must make the distinction between the Big Bang, which was a state of really high temperatures and energies in the beginning of the universe and the "instant zero". First of all, what is this "instant zero" ? It's a purely theoric construction which comes from the impossibility of the theory of relativity (and of the expansion models) to describe the beginning of the universe. Our equations can"t go further than Planck's Wall because we obtain a singularity which is a mathematic kink, it has no physic reality.

 

Now, modern theories such as the string theories or loop quantum gravity prevent this kink from happening (It seems to me that, according to them, there is a state of maximal energy density which is huge, but not infinite as in a singularity). Therefore, they can't have been a "instant zero".

 

"Why is there something rather than nothing ?" Can we simply answer to that question ? Nothing (or at least the idea of nothing) has no qualities. According to the definition of changing which implies an alteration in qualities, how could it changes to become something ? Our language cannot describe or seize such a question, the idea of the origin vanishes before.

[michel123456]

Well I'd like you to correct me if I'm wrong but i read a french book about "The origin of the universe" whose autor Etienne Klein, is a well known physician in France (professor in Centrale). And he said we must make the distinction between the Big Bang, which was a state of really high temperatures and energies in the beginning of the universe and the "instant zero". First of all, what is this "instant zero" ? It's a purely theoric construction which comes from the impossibility of the theory of relativity (and of the expansion models) to describe the beginning of the universe. Our equations can"t go further than Planck's Wall because we obtain a singularity which is a mathematic kink, it has no physic reality.

 

Now, modern theories such as the string theories or loop quantum gravity prevent this kink from happening (It seems to me that, according to them, there is a state of maximal energy density which is huge, but not infinite as in a singularity). Therefore, they can't have been a "instant zero".

 

"Why is there something rather than nothing ?" Can we simply answer to that question ? Nothing (or at least the idea of nothing) has no qualities. According to the definition of changing which implies an alteration in qualities, how could it changes to become something ? Our language cannot describe or seize such a question, the idea of the origin vanishes before.

Physicist, not physician.

[DrRocket]

Well I'd like you to correct me if I'm wrong but i read a french book about "The origin of the universe" whose autor Etienne Klein, is a well known physician in France (professor in Centrale). And he said we must make the distinction between the Big Bang, which was a state of really high temperatures and energies in the beginning of the universe and the "instant zero". First of all, what is this "instant zero" ? It's a purely theoric construction which comes from the impossibility of the theory of relativity (and of the expansion models) to describe the beginning of the universe. Our equations can"t go further than Planck's Wall because we obtain a singularity which is a mathematic kink, it has no physic reality.

 

Maybe physicians ought to stick to medicine.

 

The situation is this: If one assumes a minimal amount of matter in the universe, consistent with observation, and applies the general theory of relativity, then Hawking and Penrose have shown that the existing universe was once in a very dense state and that there is an initial spacetime singularity.

 

Now, singularities in general relativity are very subtle things. Spaceetime itself cannot, essentially by definition contain any singular points. So the meaning of the initial singularity is this -- it is not possible to extend timelike geodesic curves indefinitely in the past direction. That in common parlance means that there is no such thing as "before the big bang".

 

Some future theory that goes beyond general relativity might have something to say about this situation. But as of this moment science is not able to do that.

 

There is no such thing as Planck's Wall, in any currently viable theory.

 

Now, modern theories such as the string theories or loop quantum gravity prevent this kink from happening (It seems to me that, according to them, there is a state of maximal energy density which is huge, but not infinite as in a singularity). Therefore, they can't have been a "instant zero".

 

Contrary to the pap one sees in the popular literature, neither string theory nor loop quantum gravity has as yet even been clearly defined, let alone made any sensible statement regarding the big bang. Neither are really theories in the sense that the word is used in physics. They are avenues of research, speculative ideas with some promise, but not theories. Maybe someday one or the other of these attempts at a theory wil be able to attain the status of a real theory and allow someone to make such a statement. But that time is not now and I suggest that you not hold your breath in anticipation.

 

"Why is there something rather than nothing ?" Can we simply answer to that question ? Nothing (or at least the idea of nothing) has no qualities. According to the definition of changing which implies an alteration in qualities, how could it changes to become something ? Our language cannot describe or seize such a question, the idea of the origin vanishes before.

 

No one has a clue, and this is not a question for science anyway.

 

Science addresses the question of HOW nature behaves. It is rather good at that.

 

The question as to WHY nature behaves as it does is a questoin for philosophers and theologians. They are notorious for never reaching a conclusion.

Edited February 6, 2012 by DrRocket

[Ben Banana]

I don't know if this is going anywhere, but let's just confront reality here and now:

 

A yellow slice of cheese.

 

 

It's true.

 

(I'm not trying to troll, I just ... wanted to say that ... to troll)

 

But to be serious, I think in time we'll amass the facts, develop improved or evolved theories and maybe fully realize that this is not the question to ask, hopefully with alternative promises. I think it may already well be an unreasonable question to ask. But what's the better direction?

Edited February 6, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[DrRocket]

I don't know if this is going anywhere, but let's just confront reality here and now:

 

A yellow slice of cheese.

 

 

It's true.

 

(I'm not trying to troll, I just ... wanted to say that ... to troll)

 

But to be serious, I think in time we'll amass the facts, develop improved or evolved theories and maybe fully realize that this is not the question to ask, hopefully with alternative promises. I think it may already well be an unreasonable question to ask. But what's the better direction?

 

This ignores the empirical evidence that the moon is made of green cheese.

 

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -- Richard P. Feynman

 

 

 

[imatfaal]

This ignores the empirical evidence that the moon is made of green cheese.

 

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -- Richard P. Feynman

 

Apologies for O/T comment:

 

I have just re-listened to the Feynman "Douglas Robb Memorial Lectures" that you linked to a few days ago - absolutely great, Thanks for posting the link. He really talks so much sense and is so understandable - but also he seems to lecture in usable quotes and amusing aphorisms.

 

http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 this is the link for those who have not watched these superb lectures

[JohnStu]

I disagree with Big Bang so I am going to say this question is invalid for me to answer.

 

My theory is that there was never a "bang", but rather there was tiny tiny tiny matters that makes up parts of photons, and then photons started forming other particles. If matters are infinately divisible, which I believe they are, then there was no beginning.

 

 

[Ben Banana]

@JohnStu

Don't try stealing this topic only because you're compelled by your latest & greatest theory which belongs in the speculation section. Even worse of you, with respect to the previous two posts before you.

[DrRocket]

I disagree with Big Bang so I am going to say this question is invalid for me to answer.

 

My theory is that there was never a "bang", but rather there was tiny tiny tiny matters that makes up parts of photons, and then photons started forming other particles. If matters are infinately divisible, which I believe they are, then there was no beginning.

 

 

 

In two poorly structured sentences you have managed to take a position that is contradicted by not only general relativity but also by the atomic hypothesis and quantum electrodynamics.

 

Nice job. Lunacy[math].^3[/math]

[zorro]

1. What created Big Bang? What created the thing that created Big Bang?

 

2. And why is there something rather than nothing?

 

 

1. The essence of a "Big Bang" is at the fringes between Religion and Physics. It produces everything out of nothing. The creator, created the Big Bang one per Universe. Since multiverses have Big Bang in the past and others in the future; the future "Big Bangs" is yet to happen and its "nothing" remains static until set off by the Creator.

 

2. The Universes are filled with something. Even the most simplistic makeup of the quarks and all the rules has to emerge from somewhere. That somewhere is the Creator and He uses the the "Big Bang".

Edited March 6, 2012 by zorro

[mooeypoo]

I disagree with Big Bang so I am going to say this question is invalid for me to answer.

 

My theory is that there was never a "bang", but rather there was tiny tiny tiny matters that makes up parts of photons, and then photons started forming other particles. If matters are infinately divisible, which I believe they are, then there was no beginning.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

This is not the place for you to share your non-mainstream hypothesis, JohnStu. You've been told this before. The mainstream science threads are for mainstream science only. If you want to discuss your speculative theory, you should feel free to do that in the Speculation forum.

 

Please don't hijack threads, and go over our rules once more to see what might happen if you continue disobeying them.

[Klaynos]

1. The essence of a "Big Bang" is at the fringes between Religion and Physics. It produces everything out of nothing. The creator, created the Big Bang one per Universe. Since multiverses have Big Bang in the past and others in the future; the future "Big Bangs" is yet to happen and its "nothing" remains static until set off by the Creator.

 

2. The Universes are filled with something. Even the most simplistic makeup of the quarks and all the rules has to emerge from somewhere. That somewhere is the Creator and He uses the the "Big Bang".

 

!

Moderator Note

Mooey's comments above also apply to you. Although in your case I'd keep comments of this nature into the religious forum, you've presented nothing testable it is most emphatically not science.

[JustinW]

zorro,

 

1. The essence of a "Big Bang" is at the fringes between Religion and Physics. It produces everything out of nothing. The creator, created the Big Bang one per Universe. Since multiverses have Big Bang in the past and others in the future; the future "Big Bangs" is yet to happen and its "nothing" remains static until set off by the Creator.

 

2. The Universes are filled with something. Even the most simplistic makeup of the quarks and all the rules has to emerge from somewhere. That somewhere is the Creator and He uses the the "Big Bang".

These are along my thoughts on the subject, but good luck getting anybody to listen.

 

The singularity was before the BB. We can break it down that far, but how does a singularity incite action? If there was something else, then it wouldn't be a singularity now would it?

[mooeypoo]

Okay, enough. We're not going to make individual notes to people to follow our rules. Stick to the subject, to the *mainstream* subject.

 

No one prevents anyone from opening a new thread in Speculation and discussing whatever you feel like about whatever alternative theory of creation or the lack of merit in your opinion of the Big Bang.

 

We do NOT allow for non mainstream science theories as answers in MAINSTREAM science threads. This isn't a request, it's our rules, and we don't need to go and point at every individual to make them stop doing it.

 

Get back on the scientific topic, please.

 

 

~mooey

[Moontanman]

zorro,

 

 

These are along my thoughts on the subject, but good luck getting anybody to listen.

 

The singularity was before the BB. We can break it down that far, but how does a singularity incite action? If there was something else, then it wouldn't be a singularity now would it?

 

 

JustinW, there are theories other than the big bang for the existence of our universe, one of them proposes a "multidimensional bulk space" with various objects existing there. Three dimensional membranes are part of that "multidimensional bulk space" collisions of these membranes are what we see as "The Big Bang" due to our limited view of the universe. From our stand point everything occurred as what we know as space time (yes there are theories that suppose that time exists separate from what we call space-time) sprang from an apparent point source.

 

But on a larger scale the big bang occurred everywhere all at once and the point like expansion we see was really just a wrinkle in the membranes as they touched and annihilated each other, this annihilation caused the membranes to spring apart but eventually their mutual gravitational attraction will bring them back together for another "big bang" This hypothesis not only allows for an eternal universe but allows it to cycle with out there being enough matter in either universe to cause a big crunch that would be required for the big bang to occur over and over again.

 

This hypothesis not only allows for the naturalistic existence of what we see as the universe it allows what we see as the universe to be just a tiny part of a greater whole that is no more an indication our universe is special any more than a single charged ice crystal has to do with a stroke of lightning.

 

The idea that the universe had to be created by some intelligent creator is bogus and just as subject to being wrong as the idea that lightning is the wrath of the creator...

[Airbrush]

But on a larger scale the big bang occurred everywhere all at once and the point like expansion we see was really just a wrinkle in the membranes as they touched and annihilated each other, this annihilation caused the membranes to spring apart but eventually their mutual gravitational attraction will bring them back together for another "big bang" This hypothesis not only allows for an eternal universe but allows it to cycle with out there being enough matter in either universe to cause a big crunch that would be required for the big bang to occur over and over again.

 

Just this morning on the Science Channel (my favorite) a reputable scientist spoke of the universe coming from "nothing" and that the entire universe was smaller than an atom at the moment of the Big Bang. Considering membranes of higher dimensions coming into contact and causing a Big Bang, the idea of "nothing" seems absurd, and that the entire universe was originally smaller than an atom also seems absurd. If 2 membranes come together they probably do NOT make contact at only one point, but a region of indefinite size, perhaps a region larger than the observable universe.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Airbrush

[Moontanman]

Just this morning on the Science Channel (my favorite) a reputable scientist spoke of the universe coming from "nothing" and that the entire universe was smaller than an atom at the moment of the Big Bang. Considering membranes of higher dimensions coming into contact and causing a Big Bang, the idea of "nothing" seems absurd, and that the entire universe was originally smaller than an atom also seems absurd. If 2 membranes come together they probably do NOT make contact at only one point, but a region of indefinite size, perhaps a region larger than the observable universe.

 

 

If I understand the theory correctly, and I might not btw, the membranes can have wrinkles that would come in contact before the entire membrane contacted each other but no matter how they collide form our perspective it would seem to be nearly a point source.

[JustinW]

mooey,

 

We do NOT allow for non mainstream science theories as answers in MAINSTREAM science threads. This isn't a request, it's our rules, and we don't need to go and point at every individual to make them stop doing it.

 

Get back on the scientific topic, please.

The singularity theory is MAINSTREAM science. The OP was "what was before the BB" and what does mainstream say about that? Let's see if we can present the meaning of what is thought to be before the big bang: http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm and http://big-bang-theory.com/ , which clearly states : " According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago."

 

 

Even Airbrush mentions that a reputable scientist touched on it here,

 

Just this morning on the Science Channel (my favorite) a reputable scientist spoke of the universe coming from "nothing" and that the entire universe was smaller than an atom at the moment of the Big Bang.

although he didn't call it by name, that pinpoint smaller than an atom refers to the singularity.

 

 

Again, I don't see you jumping on Moontanman for presenting a theory that could be considered to be held by only a select few and is nowhere close to being a mainstream thesis as an answer in this thread. And that was even off topic since this thread is about the BB theory.

 

 

So don't tell me that's enough. You can jump on me about the rules once I've broken one.

[DrRocket]

mooey,

 

The singularity theory is MAINSTREAM science. The OP was "what was before the BB" and what does mainstream say about that? Let's see if we can present the meaning of what is thought to be before the big bang: http://science.howst...re-big-bang.htm and http://big-bang-theory.com/ , which clearly states : " According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago."

 

 

 

Wrong

 

The singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking show that, given the observed expansion of the universe and a minimal amount of matter (also consistent with observation) that spacetime is singular in the sense that timlike geodesics are not indefinitely extendible into the past.

 

There is NO singularity that is a part of spacetime itself.

 

There is NO statemet that "our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago".

 

In fact current theory has absolutely nothing whatever to say about the actual moment of the big bang (i.e. t=0). It is generally believed that the singular nature of spacetime is a reflection of the failure of general relativity to describe the physics of the very early universe, an era in which quantum effects as well as gravitation played a strong role. There is no accepted existant theory capable of handling quantum effects and gravitational effects simultaneously.

 

Before you criticize a theory, the first step is to understand what that theory actually says.

[Airbrush]

If I understand the theory correctly, and I might not btw, the membranes can have wrinkles that would come in contact before the entire membrane contacted each other but no matter how they collide form our perspective it would seem to be nearly a point source.

 

Exactly, it would seem to be nearly a point source, but how can they speak with confidence of the entire universe being smaller than an atom (or smaller than a proton) when we have no idea how large of an area of contact there was between the membranes?

 

Beside that, the word "nothing" is useless in this context. How can anyone know anything about "nothing"? Nothing has never existed, nor will it ever exist.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Airbrush

[JustinW]

DrRocket,

 

So this is wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang, and this http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm, and this, http://big-bang-theory.com/. I could go on but do I really need to. Spacetime? indefinite? What are you talking about? Who said anything about spacetime being indefinite? There would be no space time with the singularity, because space wouldn't exist. Which automatically prevents movement which is necessary to establish time. Am I wrong? If that is what you are assuming that I have claimed please show me where. And please let me in on my "criticism" of this theory for I was unaware of any that I have stated.

 

 

Let's see here what wiki says about the theory. " According to the most recent measurements and observations, this original state existed approximately 13.7 billion years ago,^[2][3] which is considered the age of the Universe and the time the Big Bang occurred.^[4][5] After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles. It would take thousands of years for some of these particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons) to combine and form atoms, the building blocks of matter. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Eventually, clouds of hydrogen would coalesce through gravity to form stars, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae."

 

and to support the mainstream part, " The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model."

 

And wiki is not the only place this is stated. If this theory has been changed and there is some secret place that I need to look to get the real theory then by all means tell me where the real theory is.

 

 

Before you criticize a theory, the first step is to understand what that theory actually says.

As you can see, I have clearly read this theory from several different perspectives. Is there something you would like to further inlighten me on about the theory?

[DrRocket]

DrRocket,

 

So this is wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang, and this http://science.howst...re-big-bang.htm, and this, http://big-bang-theory.com/. I could go on but do I really need to. Spacetime? indefinite? What are you talking about? Who said anything about spacetime being indefinite? There would be no space time with the singularity, because space wouldn't exist. Which automatically prevents movement which is necessary to establish time. Am I wrong? If that is what you are assuming that I have claimed please show me where. And please let me in on my "criticism" of this theory for I was unaware of any that I have stated.

 

Yep, the links are wrong.

 

I recognize that you don't understand what I am talking about. But then you don't understand what you are talking about either. It makes no sense.

 

To understand what a singularity is in the context of general relativity requires quite a bit of mathematics. When you get through it the proper statement is as I presented earlier. One good source is The large scale structure of space time by Hawking and Ellis.

 

Popularizations on this subject are notoriously misleading.

[moonjelly<3]

matter can neither be created nor destroyed...think about that

[JustinW]

DrRocket,

 

As a start this is how that source begins:

 

" Einstein's General Theory of Relativity leads to two remarkable predictions: first, that the ultimate destiny of many massive stars is to undergo gravitational collapse and to disappear from view, leaving behind a 'black hole' in space; and secondly, that there will exist singularities in space-time itself. These singularities are places where space-time begins or ends, and the presently known laws of physics break down. They will occur inside black holes, and in the past are what might be construed as the beginning of the universe. To show how these predictions arise, the authors discuss the General Theory of Relativity in the large. "

 

Hmmm, let me read this 300 and some odd pages and get back to you. As of now I don't see how it is going to differ from my origional thinking and since this book was published in the 70s you might think that others writing on the subject would have corrected their interpretation by now. And FYI, I would appreciate it if in the future you notice I don't understand something, that you might explain how I may be misinterpreting an idea or theory. I still don't know where you think I might be misinterpreting this theory, and you have yet to lead me in the proper direction other than to say I'm wrong and every other link popularizing this theory is also. You just say the links are wrong and I don't understand without any reason as to why or how but I reckon I'll figure it out once I read this. (hopefully)

 

It's an interesting book, though I had to skim through some parts and am still working my way through the rest.

 

Exact text ch.10 page 348 say's " The initial singularity in the universe. The expansion of the universe is in many ways similar to the collapse of a star, except that the sense of time is reversed.We shall show in this chapter that the conditions of theorems 2 and 3 seem to be satisfied, indicating that there was a singularity at the beginning of the present expansion phase of the universe."

 

How does that not fit with what I've stated about the BB theory? I'll keep reading though, if only to satisfy myself that they will not change their minds towards the end.

 

The only thing that might be construde as not matching with my thoughts on the subject of singularities, is the statement that they didn't know whether or not an initial singularity would have been stable or not.

 

Without space-time or matter or anything but the singularity one would think it would have no choice but to be stable.

 

 

I'll wait for your rebuttle.

 

moonjelly,

matter can neither be created nor destroyed...think about that

What about matter/anti-matter annihilation? Edited March 8, 2012 by JustinW