what was there before Big Bang?

[pantheory]

...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".

It has been a long time since science believed the Earth was flat. Five hundred years ago some of Columbus's crew were still worried the Earth was flat but these were not educated men. Not even the central Catholic church at that time, taught that the Earth was flat or Spain might not have financed Columbus's voyage.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._the_Flat_Earth

 

I think that you are correct in thinking that presently there are vast failings concerning today's science theory, but my educated guess is that none of these "misunderstandings" of reality, or failures of logic can in any way be remedied by spiritualism. You will always get flack on such an assertion in this section of the Science Forum since its entire basis is science . One spiritual comment might get by here, but you should understand that none will be popular in general here since science is science, and religion is religion.

best regards

 

.

Edited August 13, 2011 by pantheory

[containscotton]

What does it mean for something to be before a Big Bang? Didn't time itself "begin" at that point?

[BJC]

Hi Pantheory

 

Does the current interpretation of the CMBR anisotropies "shed any light (sic)" on this topic?

Our Universe May Be a 'Multiverse

 

Probably not as this refers to the Inflation bubbles not to the pre-Big Bang interpretation given by Penrose. Interesting to speculate "Will the Planck results resolve the various interpretations of the anisotropies - or just further entrench opinions?"

 

Edited to correct spelling.

Edited August 13, 2011 by BJC

[pantheory]

Hi Pantheory

 

Does the current interpretation of the CMBR anisotropies "shed any light (sic)" on this topic?

Our Universe May Be a 'Multiverse

 

Probably not as this refers to the Inflation bubbles not to the pre-Big Bang interpretation given by Penrose. Interesting to speculate "Will the Planck results resolve the various interpretations of the anisotropies - or just further entrench opinions?"

 

Edited to correct spelling.

Howdy BJC,

 

I'm a big fan of Occam and believe our one universe is simple, so believe there is no evidence or reason to believe in multi-verses. Of course we could be one of many universes, which would be real cool for me and space heads like myself, but do not think this is a simple, or the most likely answer. Both Penrose and Hawking prefer the multiverse idea, whereby such an idea leads to an infinite universe, universes with lots of cool math for them. I think this model, however, is far too complicated to be the most likely.

/

The CMBR anisotropies are predicted by steady state models, as being the minor temperature variations of galactic light based upon the web-like formation of galactic clusters. Present interpretations of the BB model assert that these anisotropies relate to condensations following Inflation originally relating to the Plank scale before Inflation. I do not think there is any validity to this argument based upon what has been observed concerning the CMBR alone. I think the observational data is being organized to fit the model.

/

Edited August 13, 2011 by pantheory

[BJC]

The CMBR anisotropies are predicted by steady state models, as being the minor temperature variations of galactic light based upon the web-like formation of galactic clusters. Present interpretations of the BB model assert that these anisotropies relate to condensations following Inflation originally relating to the Plank scale before Inflation. I do not think there is any validity to this argument based upon what has been observed concerning the CMBR alone. I think the observational data is being organized to fit the model.

Interesting - i would assume the "simplest but not too simple" would apply to the Big Bang model (+roll inflation).

 

I read a pro-con about "galactic strings" but it was in relation to the red-shift expansion not the CMBR. Without expansion from the Big Bang it is very difficult to explain the very close fit to a black body - we will see when data from Planck is complete.

 

BTW - i am trying to find info on early star formation and the Cosmic Infra-red background - any hints???

[pantheory]

Interesting - i would assume the "simplest but not too simple" would apply to the Big Bang model (+roll inflation).

My expectation is that there is a far simpler explanation than this.

 

I read a pro-con about "galactic strings" but it was in relation to the red-shift expansion not the CMBR. Without expansion from the Big Bang it is very difficult to explain the very close fit to a black body - we will see when data from Planck is complete.

I also will be looking for this data but expect little.

 

BTW - i am trying to find info on early star formation and the Cosmic Infra-red background - any hints???

Current BB theory asserts that the first stars were very large and very dark since accordingly they were mostly formed from dark matter, hence the Cosmic Infra-red background. I expect to see nothing come from these predictions, which I believe are wrong.

 

Here's one of those ideas:

 

http://www.slideshar...in-the-universe

Edited August 14, 2011 by pantheory

[csmyth3025]

 

BTW - i am trying to find info on early star formation and the Cosmic Infra-red background - any hints???

I'm not familiar with the cosmic infra-red background. Do you mean the cosmic microwave background (CMB)?

 

Chris

[pantheory]

I'm not familiar with the cosmic infra-red background. Do you mean the cosmic microwave background (CMB)?

Hi Chris,

 

The above proposal is that the dark matter hypothesis proposes that ~90% of the universe's matter is composed of dark matter and that the first stars were very large and would have been made up of ~90% dark matter. This accordingly would show up to us as "blips" in the far infrared spectra, which would be included in the far infrared background radiation . I think the dark matter hypothesis along with this idea is just bunk, but you can find many links to such proposals by using a search engine concerning "dark matter first stars." The "far infrared background radiation" is well known and can also be found by using a search engine. When the James Webb goes up we will be able to see maybe 10 times more of the far-infrared which I believe is no more than ever distant galaxies.

/

Edited August 14, 2011 by pantheory

[Kturbo]

What does it mean for something to be before a Big Bang? Didn't time itself "begin" at that point?

 

Personally I don't the presence of time is required for anything to exist.I am speaking about time as an amateur so I know the pro's might have other ideas.Is it correct to say time can only be detected only when there is an elapse of time.If for example you were placed in an absolute void,nothing else in existence except you.Would you age? Since there would still need to be the passage of time for that to happen.If the answer is yes,then it would mean before the big bang only time would have existed in that infinite void.

[Airbrush]

Personally I don't the presence of time is required for anything to exist.I am speaking about time as an amateur so I know the pro's might have other ideas.Is it correct to say time can only be detected only when there is an elapse of time.If for example you were placed in an absolute void,nothing else in existence except you.Would you age? Since there would still need to be the passage of time for that to happen.If the answer is yes,then it would mean before the big bang only time would have existed in that infinite void.

 

I like this question. Time after the Big Bang is one thing, and the absolute essence of the word "time" is something else. I think that if somebody was placed in the middle of a vacuum of empty space, before the Big Bang, that person would age. It would be time outside of our own space-time, but a form of time nevertheless. I think it is absurd to assume that there could have not been any form of time before the Big Bang. We know nothing, so far, about what existed before the Big Bang, and nothing should be excluded without scientific reason. There could just as well have been another universe before the Big Bang, and our Big Bang destroyed it, wiping out any trace of what pre-existed our universe.

 

Kturbo, you could make your sentences easier to read by putting at least 2 spaces between sentences.

[pantheory]

.... I think it is absurd to assume that there could have not been any form of time before the Big Bang. We know nothing, so far, about what existed before the Big Bang, and nothing should be excluded without scientific reason. There could just as well have been another universe before the Big Bang, and our Big Bang destroyed it, wiping out any trace of what pre-existed our universe.

Models of a finite universe, like the original version of the Big Bang, cannot logically allow time to have existed before the beginning of the universe, whatever that beginning might have been. This is logically based upon the definitions of the words themselves, "finite" and "universe." On the other hand, infinite universe models concerning time such as alternative Big Bang versions, most multi-verse models, Plasma cosmology models, most steady state models, and most theological models, all assert that time had no beginning.

//

Edited August 18, 2011 by pantheory

[Kturbo]

I do believe that time has no beginning or end.I think the entirety of space itself is really time and everything that exist within it,big bangs,multi-dimensions,multi-verses ect gives us

 

indications of its' existence.Remove all these things and time settles out like a pond eventually does after you throw a stone in it.If nothing happens then it remains absolutely still to

 

the point of seeming non existent until it's disturbed.Contrary to my previous post I think time does not need anything to exist but everything needs time to exist,it's like the pond

 

does not need the fish to exist,but the fish needs the pond to exist. Therefore I believe from a purely scientific point of view that only time would have been there before the big bang

 

because the big bang would have needed time in order for it to occur at that very specific moment (in time).

[R A J A]

There was a body which have zero volume, infinite density and infinite mass. It is called the singularity.

[pantheory]

There was a body which have zero volume, infinite density and infinite mass. It is called the singularity.

 

RAJA,

 

The question is: what was before that? The answer would involve at least one of the many hypothetical versions of the Big Bang model. There presently is no mainstream consensus concerning an answer.

[BJC]

Models of a finite universe, like the original version of the Big Bang, cannot logically allow time to have existed before the beginning of the universe, whatever that beginning might have been. This is logically based upon the definitions of the words themselves, "finite" and "universe." On the other hand, infinite universe models concerning time such as alternative Big Bang versions, most multi-verse models, Plasma cosmology models, most steady state models, and most theological models, all assert that time had no beginning.

I think all (most?) physics theories do not define time or space - only whether time & space can be measured. For us to measure time or space matter is required.

 

Models of a finite universe, like the original version of the Big Bang, cannot logically allow time to have existed before the beginning of the universe

I am unsure of what you mean by "logically allow"

 

As the Big Bang makes no statement about what existed prior to the "zero point" there cannot be a "logically derivation" of anything prior to that point.

[pantheory]

Hi BJC,

 

I am unsure of what you mean by "logically allow"

As the Big Bang makes no statement about what existed prior to the "zero point" there cannot be a "logically derivation" of anything prior to that point.

The original Big Bang model stated the universe started as a singularity X number of years ago. This was a model concerning the entire universe having a finite age. In this model there is just one universe, our own. A universe having a finite age involves a limited number of sequential cause and effect incidents based upon the definition of the word finite, meaning limited. It is therefore logically impossible for time or space to have existed before the beginning of the universe. You can only do so if you change how the universe began or by changing the definitions of the words finite, universe, or space. The original definition for universe was: everything in existence.

 

If the Zero Point Field (ZPF) pre-existed the universe then time pre-existed the universe. If so then the ZPF had a different beginning than the rest of the universe, or the ZPF could be infinite concerning times past.

//

Edited August 21, 2011 by pantheory

[csmyth3025]

Hi BJC,

 

 

The original Big Bang model stated the universe started as a singularity X number of years ago...//

As far as I know, the big bang standard cosmological model starts about 10^-36 seconds after the initiating event (the big bang itself) with the proposition that there began a very short period of extreme cosmic inflation lasting between 10^-36 seconds and 10^-32 seconds after the big bang. The standard model makes no assumptions or predictions prior to this very early inflationary epoch.

 

There are several speculative theories, called Grand Unification Theories (GUT's), that attempt to describe conditions from 10^-43 seconds after the big bang to 10^-36 seconds after the big bang, but there is no consensus in the scientific community on the validity of any of these theories:

 

Currently (2011) all GUT models which aim to be completely realistic are quite complicated, even compared to the Standard Model, because they need to introduce additional fields and interactions, or even additional dimensions of space. The main reason for this complexity lies in the difficulty of reproducing the observed fermion masses and mixing angles. Due to this difficulty, and due to the lack of any observed effect of grand unification so far, there is no generally accepted GUT model.

(ref. http://en.wikipedia...._unified_theory )

 

In short, the big bang standard cosmological model doesn't specify anything about what existed (or how long it may have existed) prior to about 10^-36 seconds after the initiating event (the big bang).

 

The use of the term "singularity" is just another way of saying that the physical laws that we have don't work at the very earliest times after the initiating event.

 

Chris

 

Edited to correct spelling errors

Edited August 22, 2011 by csmyth3025

[Kturbo]

There was a body which have zero volume, infinite density and infinite mass. It is called the singularity.

 

From a scientific stand point that's an impossible statement.How can something have mass but no volume.How can mass and density be infinite yet occupy space and time,but have no volume.That's a complete paradox there,every known law of physics failed with that statement.This is the reason the whole theory of the big bang has no leg to stand on because singularity is impossible to achieve.This is why the big bang will always be a theory.

 

As far as I know, the big bang standard cosmological model starts about 10^-36 seconds after the initiating event (the big bang itself) with the proposition that there began a very short period of extreme cosmic inflation lasting between 10^-36 seconds and 10^-32 seconds after the big bang. The standard model makes no assumptions or predictions prior to this very early inflationary epoch.

 

There are several speculative theories, called Grand Unification Theories (GUT's), that attempt to describe conditions from 10^-43 seconds after the big bang to 10^-36 seconds after the big bang, but there is no consensus in the scientific community on the validity of any of these theories:

 

 

(ref. http://en.wikipedia...._unified_theory )

 

In short, the big bang standard cosmological model doesn't specify anything about what existed (or how long it may have existed) prior to about 10^-36 seconds after the initiating event (the big bang).

 

The use of the term "singularity" is just another way of saying that the physical laws that we have don't work at the very earliest times after the initiating event.

 

Chris

 

Edited to correct spelling errors

 

This theory has it's foundations based on too many assumptions

[csmyth3025]

From a scientific stand point that's an impossible statement.How can something have mass but no volume.How can mass and density be infinite yet occupy space and time,but have no volume.That's a complete paradox there,every known law of physics failed with that statement.This is the reason the whole theory of the big bang has no leg to stand on because singularity is impossible to achieve.This is why the big bang will always be a theory.

 

 

 

This theory has it's foundations based on too many assumptions

As I said earlier, the use of the term "singularity" is often misinterpreted by the general public as the "impossible statement" to which you refer in which "...every known law of physics failed". The point is that the term "singularity" defines the state in which the known laws of physics fail. The term singularity, like dark energy and dark matter, is just a place-holder term for something about which we know nothing - something to which our known laws of physics cannot be applied without producing impossible and contradictory results.

 

The big bang standard cosmological model describes the evolution of the universe from a very hot, dense state to the very cold, dispersed, homogeneous and isotropic state we see today. The very hot and dense state of the early universe can be logically inferred from the observed expansion of the universe defined by the Hubble constant (70 km/s per Mpc). This rate of expansion has been refined and verified many times over in the past 80 years. "Running the clock backward" produces the hot, dense state that constitutes the starting point for the standard cosmological model.

 

The processes that the model describes are based on rigorous theories that produce testable results by which they've been validated. The "flatness" of the geometry of our observable universe, the abundances of the primordial elements, the observed large scale homogeneity and isotropy of the cosmos and the existence and characteristics of the cosmic microwave background all are predicted by and validate the various components of the standard cosmological model.

 

Non-scientific people make assumptions about what came before the period of cosmic evolution that the standard cosmological model describes. They mistakenly jump to the conclusion that these assumptions must be part of the standard model. They are not.

 

Chris

[Kturbo]

Pretty interesting and logical definition you have for singularity.I guess you can get away with it from that point of view,but this would mean that time itself transcends the laws of physics since I believe it's the only thing

 

that would not have failed or could be applied to that moment of singularity.I always have to take the amateurs view when it comes to dealing with time because its such a deeply complex thing to wrap the mind around.

[IM Egdall]

The Big Bang theory. It ain't perfect (what is?) But it sure is impressive. It makes predictions on the origin, structure, and evolution of the universe all the way back to some 10^^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. And there are lots and lots of independent observations and measurements which agree with these predictions to remarkable accuracy. It is today's best theory on the origin of the universe.

 

So does it tell us what happened before 10^^-43 seconds after the Big Bang? No. We can guess, postulate, conjecture all we want about time at and before the Big bang, but until someone comes up with a new theory supported by substantive evidence, we just don't know.

[Kturbo]

The best answer to all these questions is that all reasoning failed before and at the point of singularity .

[khaled]

Quantum theory implies that energy with some conditions can activate the creation operator which would create variations of matter from the energy,

 

a hypothesis known as "a universe from nothing" ...

[G Anthony]

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

 

Statistics and Probability.

 

Mathematicians.

 

Quantum Theory.

[PaulWDent]

What came "before" the Big Bang?

 

"Before" is an adverb of time. Is that the right adverb to use for this question?

 

I want to introduce a train of thought I have been developing for many years.

 

1) Current estimates of the size and mass of the universe place it entirely within

its own Schwartzschild radius ro. We exist at r<r0.

(Prove this for yourself then consider the implications!)

 

2) For r< r0, the sign of the time and radial terms in the metric are reversed compared

with r>r0.

 

Therefore a "time" question posed in our r<r0 universe should be mutated to a "where"

question for r>r0 and vice versa.

 

So my answer to "What came before the Big Bang?" is: "The Outside" (i.e. a place, r>r0)

 

Likewise, the answer to "Where is the "place" r=r0 ?" is: 13.7 billion years ago.

 

This has the potential to explain everything, without Cosmological constants, and without Dark Matter.

This is what I work on in my spare time!

 

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,

 

 

That accords with my thinking. Coalescence of Black Holes, to form the Mother of All Black Holes: Our Universe!

 

The total mass plummets towards the central singularity. 90% of it has already got there, or is ahead of us in time, at least. We are the remaining 10%. We have been plummeting for 13.7 billion years already, with perhaps another 10 billion to go. The metric where we are will be found to be that of a universe expanding at exactly the observed rate. Moreover, the closer we get to the central singularity, the faster the expansion becomes (It was also very much faster 13 billion years ago - and infinite at 13.7 billion years ago; it's a bathtub curve and will become infinite again at The Big Rip)

 

The RW metric of an expanding universe suggests that there is a uniform density of matter causing it (the 90% of the mass that we can't see, for which the term Dark Matter has been coined). But the reason we can't see it is because it is ahead of us in time (nearer the central singularity) (Note: the radial dimension inside a Black Hole is the time dimension for physical phenomena. The Old time dimension (that which existed outside) becomes the spatial

dimension inside)

 

Furthermore: GR says planets orbit stars and stars orbit galaxies and light moves along geodesics. The geodesics are totally computable from the metric. So if you have a metric that looks like that of a matter-filled universe, the geodesics are going to be those of a matter-filled universe, whether there is actually matter (Dark or otherwise) there or not.

 

So we just have to compute those geodesics to see if they explain the anomalous rotation of the galaxies.

 

I have taken a first cut at this and am getting too big an effect so far, but there is a whole slew of conceptual problems dealing with orbits around a gravitating point particle within a semi-infinite uniform distribution of matter that I would like to understand how Newton would have dealt with first, before trying to translate the problem to GR.

For example, Newton says all mass outside your orbital radius has no net gravitational effect. But orbital radius measured from where? Is one hydrogen atom enough to define a center?