what was there before Big Bang?

[Airbrush]

I cannot answer any of your questions. All I know is: (1) something allowed the big bang to happen, and (2) that something existed before the big bang. "Big Bang Potential Energy" is just a suggested term to describe the indescribable, and I have no idea what it is. How about calling it "dark potential"? Everything else is empty speculation.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Airbrush

[MigL]

Well then your 'explanation' is even more speculative than mine as mine doesn't require explaning any event or time before t=0. Yours adds complexity to something which can never be known or tested for.

 

You're not doing a good job of convincing me, and you promised.

Edited April 5, 2012 by MigL

[IM Egdall]

We aren't going to get a convincing argument for what happened before the big bang, because no one knows what happened before the big bang. Our current theory, general relativity, breaks down at time zero.

 

One possibility is that time and space began at the big bang, so there is no "before" before the big bang. This is pure speculation, but its fun to think about (though it boggles the mind.)

 

Some say there had to be a "before" before the big bang. Why? How do we know the true essence of space and time. It remains a deep mystery which, perhaps with new physics someday, we will have a better answer.

Edited April 5, 2012 by IM Egdall

[juanrga]

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

 

This all belong to philosophy

[beecee]

Hi, I have only just registered on this form, so Hi again )

I am not an astronomer or scientist, just someone very interested in cosmology and who has read a great deal and been apart of another science forum.

As such, my thoughts and knowledge are in layman's language.

 

I prefer to say that what existed before the BB was "nothing that we can understand or that is covered by our models"

 

Whatever existed before the BB, if anything, is just speculation....nothing wrong with that though.

My favourite speculation of what was before the BB is a quantum foam, and that our Universe and the BB from whence it evolved started out as a fluctuation in this quantum foam...a bubble if you will.

Other bubbles and BB's could also be speculated to have existed also.

 

I suppose it must remain as speculative until at least we have a working observable testable quantum gravity theory.

 

I'm from Sydney Australia by the way...

[space noob]

According to Einstein, at the end of a big bangs life cycle, there is believed to be a big crunch, the universe goes back to the point of which it originally came into existence, most believe that after a big bang-big crunch, another universe is created, if the point of the big bang is anything like a black hole which it more than likely is, due to the enormous amount of matter it has produced over nearly 14 billion years, then it's possible that our universe would go through the event horizon and matter would form in a different universe, this universe could occupy the same space or move entirely, creating a new big bang, Einstein believed that after the big crunch the second universe would be the same as ours but it would go backwards in time, this is debatable, due to it being "all relative" if we were in the backwards moving universe then it would still be how it is now, with no changes, we would experience it in exact the same way- from birth to death, your question relates to everything theoretical physics is working towards and it will either take a long time to figure out or we may never be able to

 

Something that had crossed through my brain before is that dark matter may be unbounded by time, or time may not affect it, so if dark matter is everywhere then time would not exist and would have started at the big bang or at any point when matter comes into existence, gravity has an effect on time but things like dark matter aren't affected by gravity, so time would also behave differently to dark matter, if you had a ball of dark matter, it wouldn't really be a ball of anything, so if before the big bang there was just dark matter everywhere then could you really say that there was something before the big bang?

 

As a lot of people said before me about whether the universe is finite of infinite, I believe everything can be measured and the belief in an infinite universe should have went out the window when the big bang theory came into place, the infinite universe is more suited to the steady state theory than the big bang theory

Edited May 7, 2012 by space noob

[ACG52]

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Einstein said any of that. The cyclical Bang theory is pretty much disgarded. The universe's expansion is accelerating, and there is no reason why it should stop. All the matter in the universe was created at the end of inflation at about 10^-35 seconds after the bang began, when the inflaton field went to it's false vacuum state and the energy in the field was converted to matter. The Big Bang is nothing like a black hole, and the ideas that the universe is contained in a black hole contradicts observation.

Edited May 8, 2012 by ACG52

[space noob]

Einstein said all of what I said about big bang-big crunch, the majority of scientists believe that the big bang will stop expanding, regardless of whether the universe is expanding or not

 

That's why people believe that the possible outcomes will either be a big-crunch or big freeze

 

Whether I believe it or not is questionable but theory of the big bang being created by a black hole or a similar event could have triggered the big bang is a widely studied area, if it was so contradictory then people would have already come to the conclusion that it is impossible, the universe itself has black hole qualities, until the loop quantum gravity problem is solved we cannot really understand anything, if we live in a universe where the best way of explaining everything is saying "there are an infinite amount of me's in an infinite amount of universe, each one being different somehow our all would be doing the same thing" or basically "a different Loey in another universe yet somehow occupying the same space is about to sit down with the talking unicorn and the Jewish mixed race homosexual Nazi enthusiast from next door" how can the only way of making sense of the universe be the most Ludacris explanation and yet afterwards we still think or universe would now make sense

Edited May 8, 2012 by space noob

[zapatos]

Einstein said all of what I said about big bang-big crunch, the majority of scientists believe that the big bang will stop expanding, regardless of whether the universe is expanding or not

Citation please.

[Airbrush]

One thing we know is, there hasn't been a Big Bang, in this vicinity of space-time, since the original about 13.7 Billion years ago.

 

Maybe Big Bangs can happen anywhere at any time, and we are lucky to not experience another.

[space noob]

Citation please.

 

George lemaitre and Albert Einstein both worked together after Einstein stood up and applauded Georges work on the big bang,

After which they both further the study and Came to the conclusion that depending on circumstances a big crunch had the potential to recreate a second big bang, if one had not already taken place,

 

How about doing your own research, i'm Fed up of trying to explain things to you, I don't care what you believe, go on the internet or better yet actually read books about the great man himself

[zapatos]

...the majority of scientists believe that the big bang will stop expanding...

Citation please

How about doing your own research, i'm Fed up of trying to explain things to you, I don't care what you believe, go on the internet or better yet actually read books about the great man himself

If you are not prepared to back up your assertions it can sometimes lead to embarrassing moments.

 

The fate of the universe is determined by the density of the universe. The preponderance of evidence to date, based on measurements of the rate of expansion and the mass density, favors a universe that will continue to expand indefinitely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

[space noob]

I don't have to back up anything to you, you are not the question poster, I am not an index, you have your own internet, go use it, most people follow Einstein and many other god fathers of science, it's the most common belief that the big bang will stop as compared to will never end, as it's not expanding at the same rate it always has, scientists across the globe have even given the universe a time limit as to how long it has left

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Spacenoob - this is a science discussion website; and that means that statements of fact can be challenged and should be backed up. When a member challenges an assertion the onus is on the person who made that assertion to back it up - it is not acceptable to just tell fellow members to google it or express annoyance at their request for evidence.

As an example, your contention that the majority of scientists think the expansion of the universe will be reversed was rightly questioned - and you need to bring proof to the forum to bolster your post. On most occasions a simple link to an internet resource will win the day - wikipedia, hyperphysics, physics.faq etc.

thanks - and please do not derail the thread by replying to this modtip.

[space noob]

Citation please.

 

My apologies, I think that I have already explained the problems I have had uploading links, now that I know how to do it there shouldn't be a problem and second apologies for my behaviour, it was uncalled for

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#section_3

 

under the heading "theories about the end of the universe" the big crunch is one of the top 6 outcomes,

 

Einstein

http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/GeneralRelativity.html

 

The great Stephen Hawkins

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/osci.html

 

http://m.zimbio.com/Stephen+Hawking/articles/WpRvKtpjskD/Bang+Crunch+According+Stephen+Hawking

 

Further info

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html

 

It's only a theory until proven right or wrong, everyone retains the right to their own beliefs

 

The big crunch is dependent on a finite universe and is not the only possible outcome of a finite universe x

[zapatos]

My apologies, I think that I have already explained the problems I have had uploading links, now that I know how to do it there shouldn't be a problem and second apologies for my behaviour, it was uncalled for

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#section_3

 

under the heading "theories about the end of the universe" the big crunch is one of the top 6 outcomes,

 

Einstein

http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/GeneralRelativity.html

 

The great Stephen Hawkins

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/osci.html

 

http://m.zimbio.com/Stephen+Hawking/articles/WpRvKtpjskD/Bang+Crunch+According+Stephen+Hawking

 

Further info

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html

 

It's only a theory until proven right or wrong, everyone retains the right to their own beliefs

 

The big crunch is dependent on a finite universe and is not the only possible outcome of a finite universe x

No problems. My wife often tells me that while I may think I'm just asking questions, my style often puts people on the defensive. I'm working on it.

 

Thanks for the links. The specific question I had regarding your post was the statement indicating that most scientists believed the universe would stop expanding. As far as I can tell, while a Big Crunch is also possible, the general consensus seems to be that the universe will continue to expand indefinitely. Did you interpret the links differently?

[space noob]

No problems. My wife often tells me that while I may think I'm just asking questions, my style often puts people on the defensive. I'm working on it.

 

Thanks for the links. The specific question I had regarding your post was the statement indicating that most scientists believed the universe would stop expanding. As far as I can tell, while a Big Crunch is also possible, the general consensus seems to be that the universe will continue to expand indefinitely. Did you interpret the links differently?

 

 

Well, I Suppose you could say it was misinterpreted, when I started to study space it seemed like most people leaned towards big crunch, or the fate of the universe question was mostly answered by the big crunch

 

It's also what we got taught was most likely at uni