Space existed before the Universe?

[buzsaw]

What puzzles my mind is that time and space and related. Do you think there was such thing as "time" before the big bang?

 

It would be helpful if you'd use the quote button so readers know who you're responding to. If you're responding to me, I don't think there was a big bang.

[Phi for All]

1. uni=one..........one verse. There's only one imo. One has nothing to collide with.

Saying there is only one universe because the name we place on it means "one" is a poor argument.

2. If the universe is everything existing, there's no membranes not included in the universe and there's no higher dimension. Everything existing exists within the universe. Imo, this attempt to redefine and obfuscate the word universe is counterproductive to coming to a correct and logical understanding of the universe.

Another poor argument. You're saying, "If there is only one universe, there can be no others." And how is expanding the realm of possibilities to include multiple universes counterproductive to understanding? Imo, redefinition does not always equal obfuscation.

[BobbyJoeCool]

Their is a problem with several areas of the big bang and the Ekpyrotic Universe theory explains it. which is why i said that. and you can have a "universe" floating in a higher dimensional ocean with other "universes" floating in it as well. It would be like a 2-d character on a book. to him that page is his universe, he can't leave it, but to us 3-dimensional beings it is merely one "page" in a series of other pages. Same thing with our universe.

 

Thank you for elaborating on what I said...

 

I'm mearly pointing out the possibility, that our universe is a four dimentional object in a for dimentional world. IF you're a 2D being, you can walk in a straight line on the surface of our planet and end up in the same place... which is puzzling because you are going straight in one direction, and you end up in the same spot (note how we know how this works because you see 3D). Now, what happens if that sphere gets bigger, The "universe" of the 2D being on the sphere gets bigger, to us it just expands into three dimentional space, but to the 2D being, it just gets bigger even though it seems to not have any space to expand into. Now of course, I can't prove that this is what's happening in our universe today, but I do believe it is in mainstream science in some form, as it's a very plausable explaination to everything. And it's VERY hard to visualize because it's hard to see things in 4D because we are 3D.

[Mowgli]

Thank you for elaborating on what I said...

And it's VERY hard to visualize because it's hard to see things in 4D because we are 3D.

 

Space is a cognitive model created by the brain out of our visual inputs. It is not a part of the "real" reality out there. "Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions in which we live," as Einstein put it. I guess Kant also said the same thing. So, no, space and time did not exist before the big bang. And the big bang did not exist till we created it fifty or so years ago.

 

Getting back to BobbyJoeCool's statement about 3D and 4D, the real reason why space has three dimensions is that we have two eyes. If we had only one eye, then space would have only two dimensions. And if we had three eyes, space would have a larger number of dimensions; I haven't figured out how many yet

 

- cheers,

- Mowgli

[ydoaPs]

Saying there is only one universe because the name we place on it means "one" is a poor argument.

as i know very well ...oh, the memories...

[eon_rider]

the real reason why space has three dimensions is that we have two eyes. If we had only one eye' date=' then space would have only two dimensions.

[/quote']

 

Actually if we had only one eye, our other senses would still work out the standard 3 dimensions.

 

Having one working eye, would not stop our sense of touch, as we walk around a room, or a city, to experience a 3D world.

 

Just ask someone who's blind in one eye.

They'll say I can't make out distance very well, but I still experience a 3D world around me.

 

Other than my little silly nitpick, you explain the way the brain conceptualizes things very well. IMO.

 

best

 

Eon.

"Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions in which we live," as Einstein put it.

 

sorry, but had to add. That's a great quote...very cool!

[Severian]

Saying there is only one universe because the name we place on it means "one" is a poor argument.

 

No it isn't. By definition there can only be one universe, since what you are calling other universes would be in fact just parts of the same universe. People have to learn to describe their ideas in the proper language to try and prevent physics discussions degenerating into semantic squabbles (which this is by the way, and happens all too often at SFN).

[buzsaw]

Saying there is only one universe because the name we place on it means "one" is a poor argument.

 

Why is it poor argument, given that uni = one?

 

Another poor argument. You're saying, "If there is only one universe, there can be no others." And how is expanding the realm of possibilities to include multiple universes counterproductive to understanding? Imo, redefinition does not always equal obfuscation.

 

Imo, one means exactly that.......one. To this old timer, expanding on that so as to come up with one = multiples obviously obfuscates. The sky seems to be the limit with modern mainline science apologetics, while Biblical creationist apologists are held to strict guidelines in the field of science.

[Phi for All]

Why is it poor argument[/i'], given that uni = one?

Becuase "uni-verse" is only a name given to what was, at the time, considered to be the one, all encompassing realm of existense. If that is possibly wrong, do we deny the possibility by hanging on tenaciously to the meaning behind it's original name?

[DarthDooku]

If the Universe is said to be expanding and of finite size' date='then there must be something(Space) outside of it for it to increase.

If everything was contained in a vacuum to begin with as the Big bang suggests,then there would be nothing outside of itelf to expand or increase into?Wouldn't it be more correct to say the Universe is finitely bound in infinite space than than to say space is finitely bound in a finite Universe(as the big bang suggests)[/quote']

 

 

There has to be something outside of our expanding "universe". Big Bang says that a tiny, dense piece of matter exploded. If there was nothing there, what would that tiny, dense piece of matter be sitting on. Space is not a perfect vacuum. The true universe must be infinite. Just as you could say that looking at molecules is infinite. You can find the smallest piece imaginable, but then you have to say, what is that made of. The same goes the other way. If you could find an edge to the universe, what is after that. It cant simply be nothing.

[ed84c]

yes it can, this sounds like the "tortiose" arguement (allthough she called them turtles), if you are un-aware of this argument, ill gladly fill you in. Especially as you say it must "rest on something"

[buzsaw]

No it isn't. By definition there can only be one universe, since what you are calling other universes would be in fact just parts of the same universe. People have to learn to describe their ideas in the proper language to try and prevent physics discussions degenerating into semantic squabbles (which this is by the way, and happens all too often at SFN).

 

Thanks, Severian for the very refreshing and sensible post. Btw, it's not only at SFN. It's a problem in other science boards also, such as Percy's EvC where Percy is ever so strict with creationists, to the point where he runs an exclusive biased club over there, imo. I know, after my active 2 year sojourn over there.

[Daecon]

It's even more annoying when the other person knew what you meant all along but is deliberately playing word-games as a way of avoiding your question. Most likely because they know you've just proven them wrong.

[buzsaw]

There has to be something outside of our expanding "universe". Big Bang says that a tiny, dense piece of matter exploded. If there was nothing there, what would that tiny, dense piece of matter be sitting on. Space is not a perfect vacuum. The true universe must be infinite. Just as you could say that looking at molecules is infinite. You can find the smallest piece imaginable, but then you have to say, what is that made of. The same goes the other way. If you could find an edge to the universe, what is after that. It cant simply be nothing.

 

Mmm, how does that work...........a true universe being infinite, yet expanding??

[Daecon]

The balloon analogy is pretty good I think.

 

Think of an ant crawling on the surface of a balloon, as you're blowing it up.

 

If there was space *before* the Big Bang, then the gravity of the singularity would have been too much for the big Bang to occur, however as there wasn't any space and all the matter took up *all* the volume of space, you don't have to worry about the effect of gravity.

[buzsaw]

The balloon analogy is pretty good I think.

 

Think of an ant crawling on the surface of a balloon' date=' as you're blowing it up.

 

If there was space *before* the Big Bang, then the gravity of the singularity would have been too much for the big Bang to occur, however as there wasn't any space and all the matter took up *all* the volume of space, you don't have to worry about the effect of gravity.[/quote']

 

If all the volumn of space is in the submicroscopic singularity, this leads to the problem of the outside of as well as the problem of what property/properties of space enable space to be commpressed by gravity into that submicroscopic area and to expand again. Also there's this question: How did that singularity speck, i.e. the whole universe come to allegedly be, what kept it in tact until it began to expand, and what allowed it to begin expanding? It appears that the creationist belief that all things came from eternal God is no more mysterious and no more of an impossibility, naturally, than the BB.

[eon_rider]

no more mysterious and no more of an impossibility, naturally, than the BB.

 

I agree with the quote above. I studied the big bang like everybody else in school. And it all sounded great at the time. But now I'm not so sure.

 

I am aware of the observed cosmic microwave background radiation that scientist have picked up and the red shift, but to me, that's not exactly a huge body of evidence.

 

How does an almost infinitely large universe start off as a very small singularity?

 

It makes no common sense.

How did this theory get its legs?

Why has it stuck around for so long?

 

Can’t space/time be curved or circular?

Don’t we have a better model?

One that makes more sense?

 

If one goes out side and looks at the stars and sees the massive expanse of the universe it seems impossible that it started out as something

I imagine to be the size of an atom, or at largest a planet.

 

What did I miss?

Is the big bang proven in the maths or something?

BTW...I do try to be open minded, so I'm assuming I've missed something.

 

Nothing against the Big Bang Theory, just trying to understand it better.

 

Best,

 

Eon.

 

PS. I'm not a creationist.

I have no issues with creationists either,

But I'm asking a science question here.

 

EDIT: I found some alternative theories (eg: Quasi Steady State, Steady State, Plasma Cosmology, others?) but most of them are out of favor as most of them fail to account for the abundance of deuterium in the cosmos or have other problems.

 

So for now it's

 

1) First there was nothing really.

2) Bang!

3) There was everything or at least 10 or 20 light years worth of everything expanding outwards.

4) This happened pretty much instantly.

[danny8522003]

My thoughts:

 

If the Big Bang was the beginnning of time (time was forged by the big bang), and gravity is curvature of time, then there would be no force holding the big bang singularity together.

[darkkazier]

well i for one believe in the M-Brane/Ekpyrotic Universe theory, it explains pretty much all the problems of the big bang, it tells what was it actually was and what was around before it. you can go here for a brief introduction to it.

 

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

[zelcon]

I think we live on a 1 dimensional brane "floating" in hyperspace. If you think hyperspace exists and we are a 1 dimensional brane, there was space before the universe existed.

 

P.S. This is cool, you use the different magnitudes of particles to represent ranking. Ha ha! I am a lepton! YES, I am my favorite particle, neutrino!

[eon_rider]

Both good points, and interesting theories.

 

I like the cyclic universe theory being worked on at Princeton and other places.

But with a less intense big crunch and big bang period.

 

Perhaps a mild crunch and mild expansion cyclic universe.

This could cycle forever with out creating any problems for GR or QM as long as we acknowledge that we are now in a very long expansion phase, and can find proof that there was once a contraction phase. Could some residue matter or energy such as "light matter" prove this? I dunno. But it might lessen the extreme notion of an infinitely compressed singularity as a starting point.

 

But it's all interesting.

 

Eon.

[danny8522003]

I think we live on a 1 dimensional brane "floating" in hyperspace. If you think hyperspace exists and we are a 1 dimensional brane' date=' there was space before the universe existed.

[/quote']

 

I dont understand - how can we live on a 1D brane if i can move in 3Ds?

[VikingF]

I have thought the same as the thread starter - that the Universe is the sum of the objects in the space, and that it was these objects that were created at (and after) the Big Bang. I did also thought that the space was infinite and had existed forever.

 

In other words, that the Universe was not the same as the Space.

 

Do anyone know for a fact what's real and not?

 

It would probably not been a discussion in that case, but maybe scientists have explored something which can be a step towards a sollution of this problem?

 

 

Interesting topic!