what was there before Big Bang?

[Protium]

I think you pretty much have it right. Time accordingly is equated with changes in reality, or changes in matter. If there was a big bang it was the beginning event and there would have been no such thing as changes before the first change, or time before the first time interval.

.

There are a great number of alternative BB models where time is separate from the BB that accordingly assert that the Zero Point Field or something else existed before the BB. In those models there would be such a thing as before the BB. Most of these models try to explain a cause for the bang or a cause for the hot dense field that accordingly resulted.

 

What annoys me is that many people think of the universe as just being paused, and then someone decided to press the play button.

[pantheory]

What annoys me is that many people think of the universe as just being paused, and then someone decided to press the play button.

 

This bothers me too since I prefer what makes sense, and time progressing without any changes of any kind to anything makes no sense to me. Even so some theorists as well as others believe in this possibility

Edited July 6, 2011 by pantheory

[36grit]

b4 the bang,

The acceleration of prehistory expansion fields like positive charge, negative charge, and a plan

[Airbrush]

This bothers me too since I prefer what makes sense, and time progressing without any changes of any kind to anything makes no sense to me. Even so some theorists as well as others believe in this possibility

 

There could have been all kinds of "changes" or quantum fluctuations before the BB. The BB obliterated any evidence for that. Probably before the BB there was eternity of insignificant quantum fluctuations, until a very special one resulted in our universe.

[pantheory]

There could have been all kinds of "changes" or quantum fluctuations before the BB. The BB obliterated any evidence for that. Probably before the BB there was eternity of insignificant quantum fluctuations, until a very special one resulted in our universe.

This is one possibility being considered but eternity is a very long time which if it became the mainstream version, then the BB model would become an infinite model like cosmological models of yore.

Edited July 29, 2011 by pantheory

[Kturbo]

This is a very mind twisting thing to think about.If the big bang which I don't believe in really gave rise to matter and ant-matter,then before the big bang there would only be a timeless matterless eternal vacuum.This would pose a lot of problems for the big bang theory because you can't have matter or ant-matter coming out of nothing.So we are left with the basic answer that everything began with a creator. Order can't come from confusion.If you have a box of leggos and you leave them unassembled for 100 trillion years,they will still be that way for ever.If you come back and find them assembled or nicley arranged then obviously somebody intervened.

[mississippichem]

This is a very mind twisting thing to think about.If the big bang which I don't believe in really gave rise to matter and ant-matter,then before the big bang there would only be a timeless matterless eternal vacuum.This would pose a lot of problems for the big bang theory because you can't have matter or ant-matter coming out of nothing.

 

Strawman. What part of the big bang theory states what you said depicted in bold?

 

So we are left with the basic answer that everything began with a creator. Order can't come from confusion.If you have a box of leggos and you leave them unassembled for 100 trillion years,they will still be that way for ever.If you come back and find them assembled or nicley arranged then obviously somebody intervened.

 

How do you jump from, "We don't know what came before the beginning of the universe" to "A creator must have done it"? Order can come from confusion, look at how natural crystals form. A diamond is a highly ordered structure of carbon atoms that forms naturally. Did someone intervene there as well?

[Kturbo]

Why is it that man think that he can solve or put the universe into perspective with a few theories.Scientist say that at a black hole every scientific law fails,so why do we think our little theories hold water every where in all of eternity.A billion trillion light years from earth,does the same laws of physics apply? This is way bigger than our minds can handle.Just try to put eternity into perspective,imagine a number with zeroes from the earth to the edge of our galaxy,that would be an impossibly large number and yet that number would be microscopic in eternity.

 

The big bang theory would have problems since it's primarly based on the fact that at specific moment an infinitismal point of matter and energy exploded.But matter and energy would have had to be in existence already for that to happen.If a pulsar or a black hole is so dense,imagine all the matter and energy in the universe constricted into one point.There is no law of physics that can support this "infinitismal point" because non can be applied to it.I don't know why they called it the big bang when it would be a totally quiet explosion( again defying physics) in a total vacuum.Our laws of physics fail again if we are going to think what exist before the point exploded,It brings new questions such as how much time had elapsed before this moment. Could be timeless infinity occurred before the big bang? We still know far too little to make definitive statements about this impossibly big universe.It's like an amoeba in a drop of water on a leaf saying I know everything about the earth.

[pantheory]

Why is it that man think that he can solve or put the universe into perspective with a few theories.Scientist say that at a black hole every scientific law fails,so why do we think our little theories hold water every where in all of eternity.A billion trillion light years from earth,does the same laws of physics apply? This is way bigger than our minds can handle.Just try to put eternity into perspective,imagine a number with zeroes from the earth to the edge of our galaxy,that would be an impossibly large number and yet that number would be microscopic in eternity.

 

The big bang theory would have problems since it's primarly based on the fact that at specific moment an infinitismal point of matter and energy exploded.But matter and energy would have had to be in existence already for that to happen.If a pulsar or a black hole is so dense,imagine all the matter and energy in the universe constricted into one point.There is no law of physics that can support this "infinitismal point" because non can be applied to it.I don't know why they called it the big bang when it would be a totally quiet explosion( again defying physics) in a total vacuum.Our laws of physics fail again if we are going to think what exist before the point exploded,It brings new questions such as how much time had elapsed before this moment. Could be timeless infinity occurred before the big bang? We still know far too little to make definitive statements about this impossibly big universe.It's like an amoeba in a drop of water on a leaf saying I know everything about the earth.

It may be man's arrogance that makes us think that we can solve such a puzzle. Since we have presently harnessed a great deal of nature to our advantage, a more complete understanding of reality will always be the quest. Within maybe 10 years after the James Webb telescope goes up I think we will know whether or not the BB is the correct model of the universe or not. If we continually see the same types and sizes of galaxies to the fullest extent of the James Webb's capability, then I think the BB model will be greatly modified or replaced by a model that would allow for a much older universe, if not one that is infinite.

Edited August 8, 2011 by pantheory

[Kturbo]

Before man understood the earth,remember they came to the conclusion that the earth was flat,to the point where you could have been executed if you said otherwise.I am saying we are coming to conclusions before we even begin the journey.There could have been an alternate dimension that tore through a weak point between itself and our dimension.So what was regarded as a big bang was really like water suddenly tearing into the hull of a submarine and filling it. I believe in creation,so I am just making suggestions from the point of view of those who believe in a big bang.Time would have had to exist even before the big bang for it to have occurred at a given moment,however the evidence of the elapse of time would have began at the big bang.Time itself is the very essence of existence which is what I think man is always trying to grasp.Objects exists in time,but time does not need anything to exist. If I were to support the big bang theory,then it would have had to occur in time and not begin time as is commonly believed.The problem scientist have is they can't account for time before the big bang, since there is no point of reference before it does not mean it was not there like still water undisturbed by the existence of matter and energy.The thing that humans try to wrap their minds around is the entirety of space,just how far does it go,since our logical mind tells us that there must be an end to everything.We are very logical as humans and that's our weakness to understanding the universe,we have come to the conclusion that 1+1=2 everywhere in the universe.The reality is there may be places in existence that 1+1 has no meaning or it means something different from 2.Our minds are so young and set in it's ways that we ultimately stand in our own way.We know so little about the brain in our own heads and yet we are trying to put the universe (infinity) into perspective.The question I leave is can finite beings put eternity into perspective,which is what we spend our lives trying to do.To say what was there before the big bang is equally asking ourselves the same question "where does the emptiness of space end? These are two questions too big to answer with science alone which is why I believe in the God of the Bible.Science is very logical and finite with limits.Spirituality easily goes beyond the limits of science into eternity.

[mississippichem]

These are two questions too big to answer with science alone which is why I believe in the God of the Bible.Science is very logical and finite with limits.Spirituality easily goes beyond the limits of science into eternity.

 

How does God give you a better answer though? "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" is hardly intellectually satisfying. Yes spirituality goes beyond science and into eternity, but with how much certainty? None.

 

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Science tests mathematical models of reality against quantitative data. Any valid hypothesis can be confirmed or denied based on that sole criterion "is it in line with observation?". God offers no falsifiability. You may posit that God was here before the universe but that is just based on your opinion or faith. There is no experiment that can confirm or deny this so it is really pointless in a scientific discussion.

 

You have the right to believe what you want. But that doesn't make what you believe intellectually useful or even germane with reality.

Edited August 9, 2011 by mississippichem

[MacIver]

I don't buy the 'it's a meaningless question, it's like asking what's north of the north pole' answer to this question. Do we know for a fact that time was created 13.7 billion years ago along with the spacial dimensions? And even if it was, would this nullify the laws of cause and effect?

 

For me, the Big Bang must of had a cause. Whether it is the collision of two other universe branes, or the creation of a black hole in another reality, or something else entirely, I don't know.

 

But for me that fact that our cosmos has a finite past yet an infinite future is proof to me that existence if larger that what was created in the Big Bang. Existence must be eternal in both directions.

[DrRocket]

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

 

Current cosmology is based on general relativity.

 

Hawking and Penrose showed that, given general relativity, the observed expansion of the universe, and a minimal amount of matter consistent with observation that the universe began in a very dense state and that spacetime is singular.

 

The nature of that singularity is that timelike geodesics cannot be extended indefinitely backwards -- that things do not extend indefinitely backwards in time. Thus, within the context of general relativity there is no such thing as "before the big bang ".

 

We have no means to physically travel back in time to observe or explore the big bang. We are forced to rely on what we can observe and what we can infer from well-supported theoretical models. To sensibly discuss "before the big bang" requires theories with which such a question can be modeled. There is ongoing research that may or may not produce such a theory sometime in the future. There is speculation, but only speculation now. Any sensible answer will have to await a real theory. Until then we have only general relativity, and in that context the question of "before the big bang" is meaningless.

[khaled]

I'm not good at physics, but I will talk about what I think ...

 

my speculation about what was before the big bang:

 

I think that before the big bang there was a complete universe like ours, and with time stars die one after another .. some transform into black holes, black holes increase in numbers, and just a speculation, I imagined that at some point everything was sucked into black holes, then at some point, some black holes collides to create something worse, more like a universe-level black hole that goes beyond limits and sucks all substances in the universe, so powerful that it made a powerful gravitational impulse towards its origin, then when it reached some state .. the big bang occurred, afterwards, stars and planets started to form once again ...

 

 

.. it might sound crazy, I just don't know,

[MacIver]

I'm not good at physics, but I will talk about what I think ...

 

my speculation about what was before the big bang:

 

I think that before the big bang there was a complete universe like ours, and with time stars die one after another .. some transform into black holes, black holes increase in numbers, and just a speculation, I imagined that at some point everything was sucked into black holes, then at some point, some black holes collides to create something worse, more like a universe-level black hole that goes beyond limits and sucks all substances in the universe, so powerful that it made a powerful gravitational impulse towards its origin, then when it reached some state .. the big bang occurred, afterwards, stars and planets started to form once again ...

 

 

.. it might sound crazy, I just don't know,

 

I've certainly heard crazier. You've seem to of almost hit on a current theory proposed by some... that a black hole in a previous universe may of had something to do with our current existence.

 

I'm no scientist, I only have a amateur interest in physics but here's what I see wrong with your theory...

 

so powerful that it made a powerful gravitational impulse towards its origin

 

Black holes are what we call singularities (just like the big bang in many ways - thus the the reasoning behind this). These are a point in spacetime that the gravitational forces are so immense that the laws of physics break down. I'm not sure if there can be 'levels' of black holes, or levels of their power. We can have BHs that are different sizes, but I believe they would all have the same innards, even if one was the size on a universe.

[khaled]

You see, the thing I meant that "made a powerful gravitational impulse towards its origin" .. was something worse than a black hole, but not black hole,

Black holes seem like a 2-dimensional hole at some level, but this thing is a 0-dimensional hole,

 

.. now I sound more crazy

[MacIver]

I believe black holes are 3D. They are perfect spheres of super-dense material, not holes, although I guess you could describe the effect they have on the surrounding spacetime as a hole... think of a bowling ball on a sheet suspended above the ground, except that a sheet is 2D and space is 3D - basically the same effect any body has on spacetime, except much stronger because of the BH's larger mass.

 

My point was that the singularity is is so dense that there couldn't be a next stage of them (as far as I know- I could be wrong).

 

I see what you're saying. But I don't think anything in current physics supports the idea of a black hole squared.

 

Here's the theory I was talking about that is quite similar to yours...

 

Our view of the early Universe may be full of mysterious circles -- and even triangles -- but that doesn't mean we're seeing evidence of events that took place before the Big Bang. So says a trio of papers taking aim at a recent claim that concentric rings of uniform temperature within the cosmic microwave background--the radiation left over from the Big Bang--might, in fact, be the signatures of black holes colliding in a previous cosmic 'aeon' that existed before our Universe.

 

Scientific American

Edited August 10, 2011 by MacIver

[Realitycheck]

There are no innards. Black holes are like planets, only much denser. I don't have the exact figure handy, but a teaspoon of black hole weighs something like a million tons, much like a neutron star. If you consider that an atom is, for example, 2 million nanometers wide, the nucleus is, say, a hundred nanometers wide while the electrons spin around at an average radius of a million nanometers. The overwhelming gravity of a black hole essentially crushes the atoms and eliminates all of that extra space. The apparent size of the black hole is misleading because the overwhelming gravity prevents light from escaping much farther away than just the surface.

[pantheory]

I don't buy the 'it's a meaningless question, it's like asking what's north of the north pole' answer to this question. Do we know for a fact that time was created 13.7 billion years ago along with the spacial dimensions? And even if it was, would this nullify the laws of cause and effect?

 

For me, the Big Bang must of had a cause. Whether it is the collision of two other universe branes, or the creation of a black hole in another reality, or something else entirely, I don't know.

 

But for me that fact that our cosmos has a finite past yet an infinite future is proof to me that existence if larger that what was created in the Big Bang. Existence must be eternal in both directions.

There is nothing wrong with saying that the Big Bang (BB) had a cause. A number of BB hypothesis assert a cause for a BB beginning. If there was a cause then what was the cause of that entity? It's a never ending sequence of cause and effect requiring that the universe be infinite in past times. This hypothesis does not violate logic, but it does violate the meaning of the word "finite," concerning time. Think about it, take your time: whether the universe is finite or infinite concerning times past, it is logically impossible for it to have had a cause, based upon the meanings of the words themselves, "finite, "infinite," and when using the definition of the word "universe" to mean: everything that exists.

 

Whether the universe has an infinite future or not is also just another matter of theory, not fact -- even though almost all theories propose a never ending future concerning matter, space, and time. Present BB ideas propose a slow heat death for the universe, but probably most who believe this might assert that there would seem to be no predictable time ending for such a process.

Edited August 10, 2011 by pantheory

[Kturbo]

Even if we use the singularity explanation,we still have not addressed what the topic is about.For there to be singularity,there needs to be gravity on an impossible scale,but where would that gravity come from.Someone asked how does God give a better answer since from their point of view,they have not seen scientific data for God.Think of it this way,if you had a supreme being on such a scale that he created the universe that boggles our mind,do you think he would discuss such mind melting information with us? Imagine trying to explain string theory to bacteria,it would not be necessary.We always assume that something is not what it is or it is not there until there is scientific data.We may very well have superior beings living in our galaxy,but they don't see the importance of communicating with us if we are too "young intellectually" to deal with them,but that does not mean they are not there.The question of singularity as it relates to the big bang or before the big bang would be paradoxical since if all laws of physics fail at singularity,then gravity should fail too.Unless what we think we know about gravity is not quite so or we don't know enough about gravity to make definitive statements about it. The fact that we can barely harness enough technology to send a robot to mars is a testament to just how very very little we know.Getting to mars is like moving about a trillionth of a millimeter in the known universe.I resort to spirituality for answers because it's not bounded or limited to scientific results and data.A person addressing the universe from a spiritual perspective can undoubtedly say "Anything is Possible".Can a scientist say with a clear conscience "Anything is Possible".I don't think the universe could exist based on our scientific perspectives that continually has limitations and laws.

[Airbrush]

Why is it that man think that he can solve or put the universe into perspective with a few theories.

 

".....Our laws of physics fail again if we are going to think what exist before the point exploded,It brings new questions such as how much time had elapsed before this moment. Could be timeless infinity occurred before the big bang? We still know far too little to make definitive statements about this impossibly big universe.It's like an amoeba in a drop of water on a leaf saying I know everything about the earth.

 

Have any scientists stated they "can solve" the universe with a few theories? Probably not, but many scientists believe we can "put the universe into perspective" with a few theories, at least the best we can with our observations and analytical abilities.

 

I share your concerns and am in agreement mostly, so I'm just picking at how you are saying it. We still know far too little to make "definitive statements" about the universe, but we can make the best case we can. Big Bang theory is the best we have now, and with time it should improve. The glass is half full, and half empty.

 

Can a scientist say with a clear conscience "Anything is Possible"? I don't think the universe could exist based on our scientific perspectives that continually has limitations and laws.

 

The universe will exist regardless of our perspectives. A scientific explanation is more rigorous than a spiritual explanation. Scientists usually will say "Anything is possible within reason, but here is what we think is probable, and it is not engraved in stone but subject to future modifications." Scientists agree on many things, but when the question goes beyond science, they will admit science has its' limitations. I have never heard a reputable scientist say "I know everything about the universe".

Edited August 11, 2011 by Airbrush

[pantheory]

Have any scientists stated they "can solve" the universe with a few theories? Probably not, but many scientists believe we can "put the universe into perspective" with a few theories, at least the best we can with our observations and analytical abilities.

 

I share your concerns and am in agreement mostly, so I'm just picking at how you are saying it. We still know far too little to make "definitive statements" about the universe, but we can make the best case we can. Big Bang theory is the best we have now, and with time it should improve. The glass is h

alf full, and half empty.

 

The universe will exist regardless of our perspectives. A scientific explanation is more rigorous than a spiritual explanation. Scientists usually will say "Anything is possible within reason, but here is what we think is probable, and it is not engraved in stone but subject to future modifications." Scientists agree on many things, but when the question goes beyond science, they will admit science has its' limitations. I have never heard a reputable scientist say "I know everything about the universe".

Your description of present day science, in my opinion, is valid. But the problem with your closing statement implies that nothing can ever go beyond present day science. Yes present-day science has limitations, but science in general, I believe, has none. It is certainly true that present-day science has huge limitations. But Just because today's science may hardly have a clue as to what's up, does not mean that future science will not be able to explain everything in reality so that even a child could understand it. Of course we certainly do not seem to be close to such an understanding at the present time, but that does not mean that such an understanding of reality is beyond our capability.

 

?

Edited August 11, 2011 by pantheory

[Kturbo]

At the moment science and spirituality are headed in the same direction on parallel paths.The answers we seek are found at the point where spirituality and science intersect each other.I think at some time the future generation will find that point and we will ultimately be enlightened.We were designed to search for answers,even in the bible for those who believe,it says God sets eternity in the hearts of men so that they will revere him.So we will always be in awe of the universe and the eternal nature of it.But I believe all the answers can't be found in science,just like the answers to biology can't be found in equations about aerodynamics.

From a purely scientific point of view,I think we need a new theory outside of the big bang because it has too many aspects to it that are based on assumption.We can't begin or propose a scientific argument by saying that at a specific moment a point of singularity appeared unless you are willing to embrace things outside of science.

[BJC]

At the moment science and spirituality are headed in the same direction on parallel paths.The answers we seek are found at the point where spirituality and science intersect each other.I think at some time the future generation will find that point and we will ultimately be enlightened.We were designed to search for answers,even in the bible for those who believe,it says God sets eternity in the hearts of men so that they will revere him.So we will always be in awe of the universe and the eternal nature of it.But I believe all the answers can't be found in science,just like the answers to biology can't be found in equations about aerodynamics.

From a purely scientific point of view,I think we need a new theory outside of the big bang because it has too many aspects to it that are based on assumption.We can't begin or propose a scientific argument by saying that at a specific moment a point of singularity appeared unless you are willing to embrace things outside of science.

 

Good grief - what garbage!!!!!!!!!!!

 

What physics course did you learn this stuff from??? - You should ask for your money back.

[Kturbo]

BCJ,

 

I see you have already placed limitations on yourself with that closed minded response.Guess what even garbage must be accounted for in the universe. A couple of centuries ago someone dared to think beyond the horizon and said the earth is round.The answer they got was "what garbage is this".