What happened before the Big Bang?

  • Thread starter Viper
  • Start date
  • #1
Viper
54
0
What happened before the Big Bang? Was there just matter about or was there a big bang before the big bang?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
dav2008
Gold Member
612
1
Nothing was before the big bang because by definition it is the beginning of time and existence...

I think there are some theories out there that there is a big bang, the universe expands, then it contracts until its a singularity again, and then the process repeats itself..
 
  • #3
LURCH
Science Advisor
2,557
118


Originally posted by dav2008
Nothing was before the big bang because by definition it is the beginning of time and existence...

I think there are some theories out there that there is a big bang, the universe expands, then it contracts until its a singularity again, and then the process repeats itself..

Yeah, "oscilating universe" model. Used to be pretty popular. Not as much now that the rate of expansion has been measured to be accelerating.
 
  • #4
HazZy
101
0


Originally posted by dav2008
Nothing was before the big bang because by definition it is the beginning of time and existence...
this scares physicists(hawkings at least), before the big bang there was imaginary time.
 
  • #5
CJames
369
0
There are actually some very interesting theories involving universes created everytime a black hole is formed and any time there is a big crunch. In other words, when a star collapses into a black hole it creates a tunnel in spacetime that opens a new universe, another big bang. This creates a multiverse. (Of course, since by definition a universe is "everything" by definition the multiverse should actually be called a universe, which is perhaps why a new definition for universe needs to be written.)
 
  • #6
ray b
176
0
the "NOT YET" WAS EVERYWHERE

unless the BB was a local event
other bubbles with there own BB
could predate ours

does the increasing accelleration
of the univerce's expansion rate
"prove" there is something out there beyond our current "NOT YET"
pulling us outward?
 
  • #7
DrChinese
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,681
1,535


Originally posted by HazZy
this scares physicists(hawkings at least), before the big bang there was imaginary time.

Before the BB: there be dragons...

I doubt you will find many scared physicists, least amongst them Hawking.
 
  • #8
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by Viper
What happened before the Big Bang? Was there just matter about or was there a big bang before the big bang?

Simply explained, INVALID. This is an invalid question because we couldn't possibly know. It is like asking what is "right outside" of our universe, there is no way of detection.

We can't possible go back and see, and our theories and such don't hold up outside of our universe, so we could only possibly know what happened INSIDE the singularity. Honestly though, what does it really matter what happened outside of the singularity or before the big bang, it has no relevance to our current universe, as long as it wasn't apart of the "big bang system", I suppose.

SIDE NOTE: [I'm just assuming the big bang was a closed system, if it was open then it would matter what happened before or outside.]
 
  • #9
HazZy
101
0


Originally posted by DrChinese
Before the BB: there be dragons...

I doubt you will find many scared physicists, least amongst them Hawking.
scared of the notion of an ultimate beginning, i think so, mainly because a beginning points to a creator. I am still not too keen on the specifics of imaginary time. is it infinite or finite? and how can one justify this?
 
  • #10
Moetasim
20
0
Originally posted by Viper
What happened before the Big Bang? Was there just matter about or was there a big bang before the big bang?


There was nothing before the big bang..the answer is correct if we agree "that everything came from nothing because its the only thing that do not come from anything" and if we agree to the answer that there was something (anything!) before the big bang then still its true as things are true till they are not proven worng...sOOO
Well, its the starting point for human brian as none of us could have peeped in the period before big bang...
 
  • #11
Viper
54
0
How can everything come from nothing, that's an oxymoron
 
  • #12
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by Viper
How can everything come from nothing, that's an oxymoron

Everything came from the point of singularity, according to the BB...what was outside of the singularity and what put it there are invalid questions because we couldn't possibly probe things outside of our universe.

There was nothing before the big bang..the answer is correct if we agree "that everything came from nothing because its the only thing that do not come from anything" and if we agree to the answer that there was something (anything!) before the big bang then still its true as things are true till they are not proven worng...sOOO
Well, its the starting point for human brian as none of us could have peeped in the period before big bang...

Here is how I say this...wouldn't an infinite something look like an infinite nothing, and an infinite nothing in turn look like an infinite something because we have no reference by which we can judge infinity. This would mean that an infinite nothing universe would in fact have the potential for an infinite something universe:smile:

I think I also read somewhere that the net energy in the singularity was zero, and it is also zero today, so in reality we haven't lost any energy/mass or gained any energy/mass and, since the net energy has always been/will be zero, there isn't and never will be anything here, in this way of thinking. I just read this somewhere, I'm not promoting it, because I don't know if it is true.
 
  • #13
kyle_soule
240
1


Originally posted by HazZy
scared of the notion of an ultimate beginning, i think so, mainly because a beginning points to a creator. I am still not too keen on the specifics of imaginary time. is it infinite or finite? and how can one justify this?

The beginning only points to a creator because we are unable to imagine anything outside of the universe, hence, how the beginning started, but doesn't a creator also point to yet another creator? this leads you in a loop also.

Imaginary time is infinite, moving at right angles to ordinary time. The idea of imaginary time is to keep singularities from being a point in space of infinite space-time curvature, in ordinary time. The big bang, in ordinary time, is a singularity with infinite space-time curvature, imaginary time was introduced to make this singularity, in imaginary time, a point that doesn't necessarily begin time...take the northern most part of our earth, this wouldn't be the beginning of our earth, this compares to the singularity. The singularity is the beginning of ordinary time, but not necessarily imaginery time. This no longer makes the BB a problem of space but of time.

I hope I made this clear enough to understand.
 
  • #14
HazZy
101
0
i understand imaginary time rather well, i just wasn't too sure if it was said to be infinite or finite, thanks. and yes, logically having a creator would point to another creator, yet most religions specifically note that before the "god" there was nothing. notice that if we ever come to the conclusion that the no boundary hypothesis proposed by hawkings is false, then there would be scientific proof that something started our universe from outside of our universe.

im not exactly sure, but i believe imaginary time is simply a theory (i have no clue how someone could prove it). therefore, one must think that perhaps it's only relevance would be to make sense of a situation that doesn't make sense. this doesn't flow well with me because it seems like a scapegoat for physics without real proof of any kind. the same thing happens with the weak anthropic principle and very strange numbers such as the cosmological constant.
 
  • #15
DrChinese
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,681
1,535


Originally posted by HazZy
scared of the notion of an ultimate beginning, i think so, mainly because a beginning points to a creator.

First, there is nothing about the Big Bang that requires a creator. Or even points to one.

Second, so what if God created the Big Bang and has had little or no subsequent involvement in the unfolding of the universe? That is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Why would it scare any physicists?
 
  • #16
HazZy
101
0


Originally posted by DrChinese
First, there is nothing about the Big Bang that requires a creator. Or even points to one.

Second, so what if God created the Big Bang and has had little or no subsequent involvement in the unfolding of the universe? That is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Why would it scare any physicists?
the only reason the BB doesn't point to a creator now is because of the imaginary time theory and the no boundary hypothesis.

well not scared in a sense of being afraid, but science just will just never accept god as the only answer, they make things logical by adding new terms and new theories. im not saying it's a bad thing, but when you continually invent new theories and ideas just to suit your previous theories i get kind of skeptical.
 
  • #17
DrChinese
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,681
1,535
Originally posted by HazZy
well not scared in a sense of being afraid, but science just will just never accept god as the only answer, they make things logical by adding new terms and new theories. im not saying it's a bad thing, but when you continually invent new theories and ideas just to suit your previous theories i get kind of skeptical.

Scientists are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

If they stop speculating at the point of the big bang singularity, then they are accused of being complacent and not seeing the bigger puzzle (i.e. what caused the big bang).

If they DO produce hypotheses, someone slaps them down for "continually inventing (untestable) new theories" etc.

Clearly, the progress that science has made in the past 50 years is far beyond what could have been reasonably anticipated before the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the 60's.
 
  • #18
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by HazZy
im not exactly sure, but i believe imaginary time is simply a theory (i have no clue how someone could prove it). therefore, one must think that perhaps it's only relevance would be to make sense of a situation that doesn't make sense. this doesn't flow well with me because it seems like a scapegoat for physics without real proof of any kind. the same thing happens with the weak anthropic principle and very strange numbers such as the cosmological constant.

The interest thing is, gravity is only a theory too, the world being round is also only a theory.

Second, so what if God created the Big Bang and has had little or no subsequent involvement in the unfolding of the universe? That is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Why would it scare any physicists?

If God created the BB this wouldn't really scare physicists, per ce,
but it would make the laws of physics changeable, which doesn't happen. Occam's razor apply's to God in science, and as of now we don't need Him.
 
  • #19
HazZy
101
0
Originally posted by kyle_soule
The interest thing is, gravity is only a theory too, the world being round is also only a theory.
yes, but can you observe imaginary time as you can gravity? and i far as i know the Earth being round is proven :wink:.


Originally posted by kyle_soule
If God created the BB this wouldn't really scare physicists, per ce, but it would make the laws of physics changeable, which doesn't happen. Occam's razor apply's to God in science, and as of now we don't need Him.
funny thing is that the "laws of physics not being changeable" is the no boundary hypothesis in a nutshell. if just one point in the universe has a different set of laws the whole theory crumbles (finding that one point(s) would be very difficult though, also i assume if it was proven false another hypothesis or theory would just take it's place). also if god is all-powerful it wouldn't matter what theory you came up with, god could always have created the universe just the way the theory states. it's really an endless argument that as of now shows no clear answer.
 
  • #20
Perspectives
45
0
What happened before the BB? 1st post

If we consider the initial singularity of creation as defined by the big bang, it has not been considered except as a beginning. However if we attempt to consider it an interesting thing happens. We can define it quite well.
S has no dimensions because measurement has no meaning. One cannot speak of when it initiated Reality because time did not exist. As to where S was is just as irrelevant since Space did not exist. Reality not as we know it, exist. And if we try to define its position we need a relative point for comparison. Out of luck there. So we must say it happened and Reality began, IF we subscribe to the Big Bang. Can we define it? Yes but only in relative terms, our perspective.
Today, We hypothesize and then follow it with formal logic and then through experimentation we confirm it, once again from our perspective of reasoning.
Prior to scientific methodology most systems of understanding Reality was sufficient. They were self limiting and were supported by subjective imperatives i.e. “The Earth revolves around the Earth since God ordained the world as the center of the universe”. Objectivity and proof was not an essential ingredient in the discovery of Reality. Do we understand any better now? No, even though scientific methodology has enhanced the accuracy of our explanations we cling to the system that best supports our perspective. This is only natural
“Common sense suggests that any physical system requires physical continuity in its own spacetime.” Yes the physical infrastructure of reality and our explanation of it is necessary for us to manipulate it at will. But like the alchemists in the middle ages we only need to understand out environment relevant to our needs. Have we defined Reality correctly? Yes, for now, our math confirms it and our devices work. Was the BB real? Many theologians say so because “Out of “No thing”, not nothing, he created all creation.” The BB fits the description pretty well. And as for Math, well I’ve always wondered did the chicken come before the egg. Can pure math spawn an explanation of the physical? Can blind calculations explain reality? Fractals?/ “Its six of one and half a dozen of another.”
:smile:
 
  • #21
There are two ways of looking at it-
the observable universe that is relavent to us is the only thing that exists, or there is a "larger" universe within which the Hubble radius can fit. The escape velocity at the Hubble sphere = c, defining us as a time-like black hole. If one physically traveled there (1 Hubble radius), one would not see anything but the homogeneous, isotropic universe we see here. But if we move in so called imaginary time (freezing time and moving through the universe without moving through time, just like light) we can see the 'edge' of the universe that coincides in time with the big bang. Physicists can not determine directly if such a universe exists.
 
  • #22
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by HazZy
yes, but can you observe imaginary time as you can gravity? and i far as i know the Earth being round is proven :wink:.


funny thing is that the "laws of physics not being changeable" is the no boundary hypothesis in a nutshell. if just one point in the universe has a different set of laws the whole theory crumbles (finding that one point(s) would be very difficult though, also i assume if it was proven false another hypothesis or theory would just take it's place). also if god is all-powerful it wouldn't matter what theory you came up with, god could always have created the universe just the way the theory states. it's really an endless argument that as of now shows no clear answer.

Well, I wasn't sure the Earth being round, it seems to be only a theory, since our space flights are debateable and some people still think the Earth is flat...but I will take your word for it and assume now it is fact

If God created the universe according to the laws of physics then wouldn't the laws have to exist before God? and therefore created God? maybe, I'm not positive about this. The problem with God creating the universe, with a set of laws or not, is that we have never observed a place in the universe that doesn't obey our set of laws, you would think, of course this isn't a sure fire way of thinking, that if God existed we would see that sometimes in someplaces the laws change, if only for a short period of time. He screwed up on man, Noation deluge fixed that, it seems reasonable to assume he screwed up on a much larger scale (with much more room for screwing up) on the cosmo's, so he would simple push that little blue spec a few light miles over to keep it in a nice tight orbit our the sun?
 
  • #23
Since we're hijacking this topic, there's a good Sci-Am article this month about the consequences of infinite space with infinite isotropic homogeneous mass (mass is a smaller infinity than space). According to statistics, there is an identical human being in an 'alternate' universe exactly like you doing exactly the same thing about 1e28 meters away. A copy of the entire universe exists 10e10e118 meters away.
 
  • #24
HazZy
101
0
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Well, I wasn't sure the Earth being round, it seems to be only a theory, since our space flights are debateable and some people still think the Earth is flat...but I will take your word for it and assume now it is fact

If God created the universe according to the laws of physics then wouldn't the laws have to exist before God? and therefore created God? maybe, I'm not positive about this. The problem with God creating the universe, with a set of laws or not, is that we have never observed a place in the universe that doesn't obey our set of laws, you would think, of course this isn't a sure fire way of thinking, that if God existed we would see that sometimes in someplaces the laws change, if only for a short period of time. He screwed up on man, Noation deluge fixed that, it seems reasonable to assume he screwed up on a much larger scale (with much more room for screwing up) on the cosmo's, so he would simple push that little blue spec a few light miles over to keep it in a nice tight orbit our the sun?
if god created the universe he would have in turn created the laws of physics. why would god have to create places in the universe that don't obey the same laws anyways? and I am not too sure if i would call the human race a "screw-up", but if you use that logic you could easily see black holes as a screw-up, but really now, both the human race and black holes are spectacular things.

and schwarzchild how did they come to the conclusion that an alternate universe would have to exist? sounds like a cool idea though, can you post a link to the article?
 
  • #25
and schwarzchild how did they come to the conclusion that an alternate universe would have to exist? sounds like a cool idea though, can you post a link to the article?
Lets see if I can find it...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000
Gee they're awful nice for offering their story for free!
 
  • #26
Since parallel universes have been proven, I'd have to say that before the big bang was or could have been other universes.

And since identical parallel universes have been proven, I would add that before the big bang was YOU posting HERE "what happened before the big bang?"

Make sense?!

schwarzchildradius: I got that magazine too! What a great article and SO EASY TO PROVE PARALLEL AND IDENTICAL PARALLEL UNIVERSES EH?

Man that was a good article.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Why add God into this people? The mythology of god has no place here.

You can't comapre reality to mythology. In a given mythology the words in the myth are the entirity of that universe of mythology.

Comparing the two is not going to get you anywhere. That's like saying if God is God than how could Allah be God.

Well, they're two different mythological stories.

You wouldn't question a stephen king story against a scientific journal would you?
 
  • #28
Eh
746
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Since parallel universes have been proven, I'd have to say that before the big bang was or could have been other universes.

And just where can we find "proof" of these parallel universes? Certainly not in the sensationalist Sci-American article posted. Even if they were, the first 3 type of multiverses listed still require a beginning. For example, the type one multiverse rests on the notion that the universe is infinite, and so everything possible will happen somewhere. But that infinite universe is expanding and begins with a big bang.

With type 2, you can push back the beginning to the past, long before our universe. But this inflationary universe is still expanding, and sooner or later you'll hit a singularity in the past.
 
  • #29
"Eh". I would politely suggest you research for yourself the proof of parallel universes. I'd ask that you not question such fundamental observations and use them as the basis of an arguement.

Furthermore, my statement stands true. The original poster question what was before the big bang. I assumed they meant the big bang of OUR universe.

Therefore, if our universe wasn't the first universe, then other big bangs, and other universes would have remained.

If you study the obvious and fundamental proof of parallel universes, you will find that likewise their are identical parallel universes.

So I conclude that saying that before OUR big bang, an identical universe could have existed.

No need to get inflammatory.


Originally posted by Eh
And just where can we find "proof" of these parallel universes? Certainly not in the sensationalist Sci-American article posted. Even if they were, the first 3 type of multiverses listed still require a beginning. For example, the type one multiverse rests on the notion that the universe is infinite, and so everything possible will happen somewhere. But that infinite universe is expanding and begins with a big bang.

With type 2, you can push back the beginning to the past, long before our universe. But this inflationary universe is still expanding, and sooner or later you'll hit a singularity in the past.
 
  • #30
Eh
746
1
Oh, no intent to get inflammatory.:wink: It's just that the Sci-American article is quite sensationalist and none of the multiverse models can be said to be factual. I don't think any physicist would even attempt to claim that any multiverse models are proven, which is why I would like to see this obvious and fundamental proof of parallel universes.

At any rate, the big bang seems to cause some confusion. As you've read from the article, there may be many other universe like ours. But those universes are part of a greater space-time, which is expanding and begins with a singularity. So you might say that the multiverse, will all "parallel universes" included begins with a big bang. Unfortunately, physicists still often refer to both local inflation events (the creation of our universe and others) and the beginning of space-time with the same name. So you can see why there is a source of confusion.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Eh - i agree on the confusion. It's not an area that's well defined enough to get it's own little society, and it's on nomenclature.
 
  • #32
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by CJames
There are actually some very interesting theories involving universes created everytime a black hole is formed and any time there is a big crunch. In other words, when a star collapses into a black hole it creates a tunnel in spacetime that opens a new universe, another big bang. This creates a multiverse. (Of course, since by definition a universe is "everything" by definition the multiverse should actually be called a universe, which is perhaps why a new definition for universe needs to be written.)

Your theory states that any 'universe' "spawns off" new 'universes' by black holes. From that it follows that any "spawned" universe (the next generation of universes) gets smaller and smaller, cause a black hole contains only a small potion of the mass of the 'whole' universe in which it was formed. After only a very few generations, that process would stop, as there would not be enough mass to form any new black holes.
 
  • #33
heusdens
1,736
0


Originally posted by DrChinese
First, there is nothing about the Big Bang that requires a creator. Or even points to one.

Second, so what if God created the Big Bang and has had little or no subsequent involvement in the unfolding of the universe? That is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Why would it scare any physicists?

It does not 'scare' physicists, but they will only tell you that any reference to 'God' or 'forces acting outside of the physical universe' is not physics, but meta-physics.

Physics can only deal with forces and material forms we can know about, and not about forces or (im)material forms we can not know about, like for instance 'the Creator', or anything like that.

The task to do for physics nowadays is to try to solve the puzzle that lie inside the supposed singularity. It means we need to take different approaches on laws of physcics. The BB theory poses a difficult contradiction between GR and quantum physics.
 
  • #34
heusdens
1,736
0


Originally posted by HazZy
the only reason the BB doesn't point to a creator now is because of the imaginary time theory and the no boundary hypothesis.

well not scared in a sense of being afraid, but science just will just never accept god as the only answer, they make things logical by adding new terms and new theories. im not saying it's a bad thing, but when you continually invent new theories and ideas just to suit your previous theories i get kind of skeptical.

There is obviously a difficulty in physical terms with our model of the universe, since GR projects it started out from a singularity. We don't have a quantum gravity theory, so we have no idea as to what happened under that conditions.

What you say about being skeptical about how science proceeds, is I think not very relevant. Physics and science talk about what can be know. Science proceeds by modelling (parts) of reality into a theory, that fits observation. But no scientific theory is static, if new observations contradict the theory, we have to invent a new theory.
That is how science proceeds, and that makes it very different from f.i. theology that speaks in absolute terms about the divine origin of the universe, life, etc. This idea can neither be proven or disproven, and there fore has no use in the scientific debate.
 
  • #35
heusdens
1,736
0


Originally posted by DrChinese
First, there is nothing about the Big Bang that requires a creator. Or even points to one.

Second, so what if God created the Big Bang and has had little or no subsequent involvement in the unfolding of the universe? That is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Why would it scare any physicists?

The Big Bang implies some deep philosophical and physical problems.

As to the issue of God, one could at least say that God did not create the universe, cause there was no time to do that (neither a place).

The reigious minded people will then hold on, and tell that God not only created matter, but time and space as well "simultaniously".
This makes God to be an actor outside of matter, time and space.

Physics can not deal with that, cause outside of matter, time and space, things don't exist. The can be "given" existence only by way of thought, that is they exist in the mind itself, as concepts, or abstract ideas, but not as physical realities.
 

Suggested for: What happened before the Big Bang?

Replies
6
Views
636
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
665
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
418
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
Top