what was there before Big Bang?

[IM Egdall]

I have done some reading. 40 years worth and it depends on whose version you wish to quote - there are all flavors.

Cite me ANY BB model that envisions an INfinite amount of material or an INfinite volume in the Universe.

They cite the expansion model as proof of the expansion model.

It reeks of self serving reverse engineering.

Do YOUR homework. And think for yourself instead of parroting the conventional lore.

It wasn't that long ago that scholars of your caliber were debating over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Obviously you have no specifics to discuss, so I guess a general denegration is the best you could do.

If the known universe - no, lets say a volume of the known universe taken to a power of septemdecillion - were to expand by only a billionth of a micron each billion eons, the universe would have suffered entrophy death an eternity ago. Existence didn't begin. It is not a function of cause and effect.

 

The big bang model is the best theory we currently have on the creation and evolution of the universe. Why? Because of all the evidence from a number of independent observations which agree with its predictions. See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

 

If you challenge the theory, then please give us an alternative theory which also fits with observations and offers new predictions which can be verified.

[questionposter]

The big bang model is the best theory we currently have on the creation and evolution of the universe. Why? Because of all the evidence from a number of independent observations which agree with its predictions. See link: http://en.wikipedia....tional_evidence

 

If you challenge the theory, then please give us an alternative theory which also fits with observations and offers new predictions which can be verified.

 

How about that the universe is infinitely large and there is infinite matter? With that in mind, anything we see is purely local.

Edited March 29, 2012 by questionposter

[THoR]

The big bang model is the best theory we currently have on the creation and evolution of the universe. Why? Because of all the evidence from a number of independent observations which agree with its predictions. See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

 

If you challenge the theory, then please give us an alternative theory which also fits with observations and offers new predictions which can be verified.

It's not the data I dispute it is the interpretation.

First a little logic:

 

Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.

 

This is a rather simple axiom, logically self-evident since any who might dissent must believe in things that don't exist. Existence in the absence of change is possible, change in the absence of existence is not. The fact that existence is required in order for change to occur explicitly means cause and effect is a function of (derived from) the phenomenon of existence. This is a No Brainer.

 

Existence is not a function of time/change/cause and effect, and since it is not temporal in nature the cosmos didn't "BEGIN". Any version of BigBang would have led to an entrophy death an eternity ago - even the cyclical model. If light is comprised of massless photons which would not be retrieved by the forces of gravity, then unless the Universe is entirely coated with a layer of black holes like a chocolate dipped ice cream cone, each "Big Crunch" would still have been plagued by an energy leak that would lead to a much slower - but ultimately inevitable - entropy death conclusion. And it would have happened an eternity ago.

[IM Egdall]

It's not the data I dispute it is the interpretation.

First a little logic:

 

Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.

 

This is a rather simple axiom, logically self-evident since any who might dissent must believe in things that don't exist. Existence in the absence of change is possible, change in the absence of existence is not. The fact that existence is required in order for change to occur explicitly means cause and effect is a function of (derived from) the phenomenon of existence. This is a No Brainer.

 

Existence is not a function of time/change/cause and effect, and since it is not temporal in nature the cosmos didn't "BEGIN". Any version of BigBang would have led to an entrophy death an eternity ago - even the cyclical model. If light is comprised of massless photons which would not be retrieved by the forces of gravity, then unless the Universe is entirely coated with a layer of black holes like a chocolate dipped ice cream cone, each "Big Crunch" would still have been plagued by an energy leak that would lead to a much slower - but ultimately inevitable - entropy death conclusion. And it would have happened an eternity ago.

 

So what interpretation do you propose which matches all the observations?

[THoR]

So what interpretation do you propose which matches all the observations?

Contemporary Science vs. Common Sense

 

It's really rather simple.

 

The cosmos is both eternal and infinite. That infinitesimal portion we can detect with our puny technology may seem quirky but the answer isn't to throw out logic and the most basic laws of physics. We boast of our 'Modern Technology' much like the pundits of the 15th century...and even earlier when they tried to capture all knowledge in a single library.

 

We are basically cows trying to learn calculus...unfortunately most of the students will assume room tempurature before achieving any rudimentary form of understanding. I want to conduct an experiment...on the nature of light...but the source has to be a known quantity, the light has to become 14 Billion years old and have traveled trillions of miles. I'm 63 years old and seriously doubt I will be around to see the result.

 

All the megabrains since the 1930's have glommed onto Hubble's faux pas and expended a vast amount of money, time an effort trying to find the age of something eternal and the size of something infinite. The cosmos has no size or age. The waste of time and effort perpetrated by organized science puts to shame the wasted efforts of organized religion to decipher the nature and wishes of an omnipotent and omniscient deity that doesn't exist. Damn shame.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

THoR, this particular forum is to be kept in line with mainstream science and mainstream science only. If you would like to posit speculative material, do so in the Speculations forum.

Do not respond to this modnote.

[IM Egdall]

Contemporary Science vs. Common Sense

 

The cosmos is both eternal and infinite.

 

I believe modern cosmology leans toward the "cosmos is infinite" idea. But per Einstein's general relativity, even an infinite cosmos can expand.

 

As to an eternal cosmos, it may very well be. We just don't know. Since general relativity fails at time zero of the big bang, we cannot project to before the big bang. Did time begin with the big bang or was there time before the big bang? We don't know. So an eternal cosmos remains an open question in our current understanding.

 

As to your saying it is all a waste of time, I totally disagree. The fact that some brilliant human minds on this tiny planet somewhere in the vast cosmos have developed a scientific theory on the creation and evolution of the universe which is supported by empirical evidence (lots of it) is extraordinary, to say the least. Yes we only observe a tiny portion of the universe (we think) and yes, the big bang theory may be subject to future modification and change (like any scientific theory). But all-in-all, I for one am thankful to be alive in this age of wonder and cosmic discoveries.

[MigL]

Look THoR...

You've made another uneducated, ignorant statement. That photons would, even for an oscillating universe, 'leak out' of the universe unless it was surrounded by black holes like a choccolate coating.

So I've gotta ask, leak out into what ???? THERE IS NO OUTSIDE !!

It is not cosmology which doesn't make sense. its your understanding of it.

 

So, I repeat educate yourself, even with entry level popularizations like Hawking's A Brief History of Time, or any of Brian Green's books. Or feel free to ask some of us to clarify parts you don't understand. I can think of at least a dozen members of this forum who are very knowledgeable on the subject and who have helped me to a better understanding.

[THoR]

Look THoR...

You've made another uneducated, ignorant statement. That photons would, even for an oscillating universe, 'leak out' of the universe unless it was surrounded by black holes like a choccolate coating.

So I've gotta ask, leak out into what ???? THERE IS NO OUTSIDE !!

It is not cosmology which doesn't make sense. its your understanding of it.

 

So, I repeat educate yourself, even with entry level popularizations like Hawking's A Brief History of Time...

Read it. He has a great facility for crunching numbers but I am not impressed by his interpretation.

... or any of Brian Green's books. Or feel free to ask some of us to clarify parts you don't understand. I can think of at least a dozen members of this forum who are very knowledgeable on the subject and who have helped me to a better understanding.

Even Newton theorized that unless a static universe expanded at a certain rate it would contract under the influence of gravity. That would be true in a FINITE universe, but in an infinite universe that is homogeneous and isotropic it is NOT true. If there is a distribution of mass/energy beyond our cosmological horizon there would be no crunch.

 

It's YOUR team that remains somewhat undecided whether the universe is flat, hyperbolic, spherical, open, closed or shaped like a pretzel. Finite but unbounded seems to be popular.

 

Per the Friedmann model, the universe is not infinite in space, but it doesn't have any boundary. Gravity bends space around onto itself, making it like the surface of a sphere. If a traveler keeps traveling in one direction on its surface he will never reach a barrier, but will eventually come back to where he started. If this is the case then from any point 'A' there must exist another point 'B' within a finite distance such that the motion of point 'B' in ANY direction will not increase the distance between the two. Excuse my skepticism, but I see no evidence that such is the case.

 

In a mathematical model you can embed 3D space into a higher dimensional manifold (why stop at 10 or 11) by definition, but would any higher dimension have a physical significance. If the cosmos were expanding INTO WHAT?) at the speed of light, a traveler would, again, never be able to reach a boundary. Proposing it doesn't make it so. Time is nothing more than a measurement. A comparison of two (or more) relative rates of change. Even with expansion, at any frozen instant in time point 'A' must have a companion point 'B' within a finite distance such that the (unfrozen) motion of point 'B' in ANY direction will not increase the distance between the two.

 

BB theory requires the red shift to be the result of expansion - else something somewhere is exceeding the cosmic speed limit and the model breaks down. Extreme hypothetics (dark energy/matter) are required to shore it up and those hypothetics are now fully a part of the contemporary wisdom. The validity of any falsely premised theory can be proven by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results.

 

If the universe began. If existence IS the result of cause and effect/creation/process then it MUST be finite - else it would have had to expand at an infinite rate or for an infinite time.

 

Fortunately such is not the case. The fact that before something can change or be changed it must exist means cause and effect is a function of existence, not the reverse. The universe is not temporal, it did not begin, existence is not a function of time.

 

Funny, nobody has made any effort to rebut this simple axiom.

 

I believe modern cosmology leans toward the "cosmos is infinite" idea. But per Einstein's general relativity, even an infinite cosmos can expand.

Infinite means without limit. Expand means to increase a limit. Doesn't seem to jibe.

As to an eternal cosmos, it may very well be. We just don't know. Since general relativity fails at time zero of the big bang, we cannot project to before the big bang. Did time begin with the big bang or was there time before the big bang? We don't know. So an eternal cosmos remains an open question in our current understanding.

If something must exist in order to change or be changed then change is a function of existence, not the reverse. Albeit it has become overly glorified by Uncle Al, time is simply a measurement - a comparison or rates of change. If someone wants to describe BigBang as a cosmic hurricane - a local event - I'd have no problem with it, but it certainly didn't give birth to an infinite universe.

As to your saying it is all a waste of time, I totally disagree. The fact that some brilliant human minds on this tiny planet somewhere in the vast cosmos have developed a scientific theory on the creation and evolution of the universe which is supported by empirical evidence (lots of it) is extraordinary, to say the least. Yes we only observe a tiny portion of the universe (we think) and yes, the big bang theory may be subject to future modification and change (like any scientific theory). But all-in-all, I for one am thankful to be alive in this age of wonder and cosmic discoveries.

My grandparents knew a time when man had not yet mastered powered flight. My grandchildren have never known a time when the artifacts of man weren't embedded on the moon. I, too, am very thankful that I was born into this era...and disturbed when science fails to recognize one simple incontrovertible axiom (see above) that would lead it in a better direction than multiple universes and extra dimensions.

Edited March 31, 2012 by THoR

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

THoR, stop hijacking and derailing this thread with speculations; we have another forum for that and you are welcome to post in it.

Do not respond to this mod note and do not make me tell you a third time.

[THoR]

Been advised to move to another forum.

My challenge to the conventional wisdom seems to be disturbing the participants.

I always thought simple basic logic was necessary to valid scientific inquiry. How silly of me.

That must be philosophy - or metaphysics.

[Phi for All]

Been advised to move to another forum.

My challenge to the conventional wisdom seems to be disturbing the participants.

I always thought simple basic logic was necessary to valid scientific inquiry. How silly of me.

That must be philosophy - or metaphysics.

Bingo!

 

Bye bye.

[questionposter]

If the universe contains everything, how could there be anything before it?

[granpa]

the map is not the territory.

 

it may seem in your head that time and space should go on forever but thats just the map in your head.

 

the territory itself is entirely finite in both time and space

Edited April 1, 2012 by granpa

[questionposter]

the map is not the territory.

 

it may seem in your head that time and space should go on forever but thats just the map in your head.

 

the territory itself is entirely finite in both time and space

 

How could you fit infinity in your head? It seems a little too large to do that...

We can't really say for sure whether space is finite or infinite at this point.

[MigL]

Whether finite or infinite is of no consequence, we do know that it cannot be bounded, Otherwise you need to account for the 'other' side of the boundary.

 

As for THoR's opinions that the universe is finite and positively curved, since its predicted by Newtonian gravity and the outdated Freidman model, perhaps he should also consider using General Relativty and alternative flat ( Euclidian ) or negatively curved models which are by definition infinite in extent.

3D space or 4D space-time has an intrinsic curvature, ie. it is not embedded in a higher dimensional space. Certainly not the 10 or 11 dimensions of the totally separate Sstring theory where the extra 6 or 7 dimensions are compacted Calabi-Yau manifolds.

Also when we speak of expansion we don't mean the boundaries are expanding, since THERE ARE NO BOUNDARIES,we mean separation between objects such as galaxies and galactic clusters is increasing.

[IM Egdall]

Whether finite or infinite is of no consequence, we do know that it cannot be bounded, Otherwise you need to account for the 'other' side of the boundary.

 

As for THoR's opinions that the universe is finite and positively curved, since its predicted by Newtonian gravity and the outdated Freidman model, perhaps he should also consider using General Relativty and alternative flat ( Euclidian ) or negatively curved models which are by definition infinite in extent.

3D space or 4D space-time has an intrinsic curvature, ie. it is not embedded in a higher dimensional space. Certainly not the 10 or 11 dimensions of the totally separate Sstring theory where the extra 6 or 7 dimensions are compacted Calabi-Yau manifolds.

Also when we speak of expansion we don't mean the boundaries are expanding, since THERE ARE NO BOUNDARIES,we mean separation between objects such as galaxies and galactic clusters is increasing.

 

I agree. And ThoR should consider the evidence. The Cosmic Microwave Background and other observations indicate the universe is flat. So infinite in extent.

 

(But this is evidence for the observable universe.)

Edited April 2, 2012 by IM Egdall

[Airbrush]

Thanks for the interesting discussion above.

 

So what do y'all think there was before the big bang? And answer the question without using the word "nothing" please.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Airbrush

[JustinW]

If you'll pardon the seeming idiocracy of this, I have a couple of questions.

 

MigL,

 

Whether finite or infinite is of no consequence, we do know that it cannot be bounded, Otherwise you need to account for the 'other' side of the boundary.

How do we know that it cannot be bounded?

If the BB origionated from a single point, and in that point was "all there is", then there would be no "outside", right? That would be assuming that there is an outside of "all there is", which in my mind would be just as speculative as anything.

 

 

 

And I've seen moderators crack down on speculative remarks in this thread. Considering the OP, "What was before the Big Bang", how could this thread be anything but speculative? It seems to me that a person's metaphysical or philosophical logical would fit right in with any other theory on the subject.

Edited April 4, 2012 by JustinW

[MigL]

Sorry JustinW, I don't understand your question.

Infinite and unbounded is obviously easy to understand, there is no boundary because it is infinite and goes on forever.

Finite and unbounded means it is of a finite size but has no boundary, much like the world we live on you can walk along the surface in any direction and never reach an edge. The surface of the sphere would be the 2-dimensional analogue of 3-dimensional space.

 

We obviously prefer unbounded systems because if we do consider a boundary, then we have to account for the other side of said boundary.

The same is true for 'what was there before the big bang'. If we consider a boundary at t=0 then we have to explain what's on the 'other side' where none of our physics applies anymore, ie it cannot be explaned or even pondered. I prefer to think that at some point where t>0 ( possibly Planck time ) a steady condition existed which extends back in time ( or does time lose meaning at Plank time ) indefinitely.

 

Since this whole thread is speculative, as has been mentioned, that is my opinion. I, of course, reserve the right to change my opinion as different views and new information are available to me ( never let it be said I'm not open minded ).

Edited April 4, 2012 by MigL

[owl]

Thanks for the interesting discussion above. Very interesting.

 

So what do y'all think there was before the big bang? And answer the question without using the word "nothing" please.

I'm guessing that everything there is (in our little cosmos) was coming back (imploding) after reversal of the last outgoing Bang half cycle. All we need is enough matter/energy (regular or "dark"... whatever that might be) to make the 'gravitational net' catch and reverse the outgoing half of a "Bang/Crunch" cycle.

 

"Something from nothing" remains a pseudo-scientific cosmological version of creationism, whether it all came out of 'god's magic hat' or appeared magically out of nothing, all in a "point of no volume" as per Hawking's old singularity version of the "origin."

[Airbrush]

Since this whole thread is speculative, as has been mentioned, that is my opinion. I, of course, reserve the right to change my opinion as different views and new information are available to me ( never let it be said I'm not open minded ).

 

Then I will try to convince you that there had to be something before the big bang, simply because conditions allowed a big bang to happen. Let's call it "big bang potential energy". I am certain that something like that existed before the big bang. And that is not speculation, that is logic.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Airbrush

[MigL]

Then you'll also need to explain what 'before' means since time started at t=0 or the moment of the big bang.

 

Would it have been 'negative' time or was there a 'previous' time ?? Or did time actually begin at some prior epoch and is not really connected to our 'space' in GR's space-time ??

[Airbrush]

Yes, some prior epoch not connected to our space-time. Our space-time obliterated and superseded, or sprang out of, branched off, whatever pre-existed it.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Airbrush

[MigL]

Then how do you know the same rules apply to the previous epoch of time from which our space-time sprang ?? Did the previous time stop when our space-time started, or did the time component continue and space spring into existence to join with it ?? And when you say the 'potential' for the big bang existed 'prior' to t=0, does the 'potential' have the same meaning as in the current version of the universe ?? I myself don't see how it could. A potential in a time-only universe would be vastly different from potential as we know it in a space-time universe.

 

Notice how the simple notion of 'before' t=0 becomes very silly, very fast.