What was there before everything came to existence?

[Veer Vardhan Singh]

I mean , it is said that universe started with a big bang and before it it was a point .so what can we say about where the point was , i mean like when we talk about ,where are galaxies , the answer is universe . So like that where did that point exist . Or there was just "Nothing"?

 

[weirdoguy]

it is said that universe started with a big bang and before it it was a point

No it is not. It's a pop-sci misconception. If our Universe is spatially infinite (which we think is the case) then it was infinite "during" the Big Bang, not a point. There are plenty of threads here dealing with those misconceptions about BB, use 'search' button.

 

[phinds]

I mean , it is said that universe started with a big bang and before it it was a point .so what can we say about where the point was , i mean like when we talk about ,where are galaxies , the answer is universe . So like that where did that point exist . Or there was just "Nothing"?

In addition to weirdoguy's having pointed out one of your misconceptions about the Big Bang Theory, here's another one: The theory is silent on the creation even and what, if anything, came before. That is, the answer to your question of what came before is "we have no idea"

 

[Veer Vardhan Singh]

In addition to weirdoguy's having pointed out one of your misconceptions about the Big Bang Theory, here's another one: The theory is silent on the creation even and what, if anything, came before. That is, the answer to your question of what came before is "we have no idea"

Yeah that was what I looking for.
Thanks!

 

[Ibix]

One additional observation - general relativity models the notion of "before" and "after" in terms of spacetime. In those terms, it doesn't seem clear to me that "before the universe" is a concept that necessarily makes sense. So I'd say you need a theory describing what "before the universe" could mean before you can even get as far as @phinds' "no idea".

 

[Veer Vardhan Singh]

In addition to weirdoguy's having pointed out one of your misconceptions about the Big Bang Theory, here's another one: The theory is silent on the creation even and what, if anything, came before. That is, the answer to your question of what came before is "we have no idea"

So, except some philosophies that what was there before universe we till date don't have proof what really was there?

 

[phinds]

So, except some philosophies that what was there before universe we till date don't have proof what really was there?

As I said, we not only have no proof of what was there we have no idea WHAT was there so nothing to have any "proof" OF, and as Ibix pointed out, the situation is far more complicated than you think.

Rather than speculated based on pop-science misconceptions, you would be better severed to study some actual cosmology. Your misconceptions are quite common but are rapidly dispelled with a little study.

 

[m4r35n357]

So, except some philosophies that what was there before universe we till date don't have proof what really was there?

I think you mean "mythologies".

 

[Veer Vardhan Singh]

Hmm. Yeah . mythologies. You can say

 

[kimbyd]

So, except some philosophies that what was there before universe we till date don't have proof what really was there?

No exceptions. We really don't know.

There are lots of ideas. But there is not as of yet any evidence to point the way as to which of these ideas (if any) are correct.

The way I picture it is this: as we try to look a what happened further and further into the past, our understanding of what happened gets more and more limited. Eventually, we reach a point where the available evidence is so limited that nothing conclusive can be said. Ideally, as time goes on, we'll gather more evidence and learn more about the early universe. But the fact of the matter is that there may be some questions that will be fundamentally impossible to answer.

There is no philosophy which offers a way out of this. There may be some that claim to, but they cannot justify their confidence.

 

[Chiclayo guy]

Just thinking out loud...if the current thinking is that the universe is infinite, do terms like "early universe" and "what happened" even make sense?

 

[phinds]

Just thinking out loud...if the current thinking is that the universe is infinite, do terms like "early universe" and "what happened" even make sense?

Why would they not?

 

[Chiclayo guy]

In common usage infinite usually means eternal. No beginning and no end. How is it possible to assign early, middle or late time periods to something that has existed forever? If cosmologists have arbitrarily chosen to designate the big bang as the early period of an infinite universe, that's a different concept.

 

[phinds]

In common usage infinite usually means eternal. No beginning and no end. How is it possible to assign early, middle or late time periods to something that has existed forever? If cosmologists have arbitrarily chosen to designate the big bang as the early period of an infinite universe, that's a different concept.

And that is indeed what has happened. The Big Bang Theory is silent on the creation event and describes the universe starting after the Inflation Era (Inflation is not a hard fact but seems to be the case) and going forward for an infinite amount of time.

 

[Ibix]

And that is indeed what has happened.

I'm not sure that's completely fair. A simple FLRW universe has a beginning (edit: or at least a singularity it can't work past), and the early universe is the bit of spacetime close to that beginning. More recent models may be different, but that makes the designation a historical artefact, like "atom" meaning "indivisible", rather than arbitrary.

 

[m4r35n357]

In common usage infinite usually means eternal. No beginning and no end. How is it possible to assign early, middle or late time periods to something that has existed forever? If cosmologists have arbitrarily chosen to designate the big bang as the early period of an infinite universe, that's a different concept.

But this is not "common usage" forums, and there has been precious little physics discussed so far.

BTW I have already reported this thread as a B (lack of research, no equations), and it was banged down from A to I. I still think I was right in the first place . . .

Bah!

 

[PeterDonis]

if the current thinking is that the universe is infinite

The current thinking is that the universe is spatially infinite. Our best current theory does not take a position on whether the universe existed for an infinite time in the past. We don't know enough to say either way.

In common usage infinite usually means eternal.

"Infinite in time" means eternal. "Infinite in space" does not.

 

[kimbyd]

In common usage infinite usually means eternal. No beginning and no end.

In common usage, perhaps. But this doesn't apply to cosmology. There are three possible infinities to discuss in this context:
1) Past-eternal.
2) Future-eternal.
3) Infinite in spatial extent.

(2) seems to be likely based upon the current best-fit model of cosmology. (1) and (3) are unknown and possibly unknowable.

 

[PeterDonis]

(2) seems to be likely based upon the current best-fit model of cosmology. (1) and (3) are unknown and possibly unknowable.

(3) is also what the current best-fit model of cosmology says, so I don't know that its status is any different from (2). (1) is the one that the current best-fit model is uncertain about.

 

[windy miller]

(3) is also what the current best-fit model of cosmology says, so I don't know that its status is any different from (2). (1) is the one that the current best-fit model is uncertain about.

Can you give a reference and explanation for that? are you referring to the flatness for the universe? I understand that to be compatible with either a universe that is spatially infinite or one that is finite but massively bigger than the observable universe and there is no way to decide between the two. Is this what you are referring to?

 

[windy miller]

No it is not. It's a pop-sci misconception. If our Universe is spatially infinite (which we think is the case) then it was infinite "during" the Big Bang, not a point. There are plenty of threads here dealing with those misconceptions about BB, use 'search' button.

What do you mean by pop science? I think the unfortunate thing is that several professional cosmologists have often said silly unjustified things like the big bang was the beginning of the universe.

 

[PeterDonis]

are you referring to the flatness for the universe? I understand that to be compatible with either a universe that is spatially infinite or one that is finite but massively bigger than the observable universe and there is no way to decide between the two.

I said that our best current model says the universe is spatially infinite. The error bars in the data are still enough to make a model in which the universe is spatially finite, but much larger than our observable universe, possible; but cosmologists seem to consider such a model unlikely.

 

[PeterDonis]

What do you mean by pop science? I think the unfortunate thing is that several professional cosmologists have often said silly unjustified things like the big bang was the beginning of the universe.

Pop science does not mean "things said by people who aren't professional scientists". It means "things said in any medium other than textbooks or peer-reviewed papers, even if they are said by professional scientists". Professional scientists don't say the big bang was the beginning of the universe in textbooks or peer-reviewed papers. They say them in articles and books and videos aimed at non-scientists.

 

[windy miller]

Pop science does not mean "things said by people who aren't professional scientists". It means "things said in any medium other than textbooks or peer-reviewed papers, even if they are said by professional scientists". Professional scientists don't say the big bang was the beginning of the universe in textbooks or peer-reviewed papers. They say them in articles and books and videos aimed at non-scientists.

Well you certainly get many textbooks and peer reviewed papers saying the age of the unviers is 13.8 billion years. But if what you say is right, and i very much agree that it is right ,then they shouldn't say that. I agree we can't say the big bang was the beginning of the universe. What we can say is that we can trace the evolution of the universe back to 13.8 billion years, what happened before that is a mystery. It might be that was the beginning of all space and time, or it might be that the universe existed forever into the past, nobody knows. But what follows from that is that age of the universe is unknown.
Now of course you might argue that when scientists use the phrase "age of the universe" they mean time since inflation. But I think its clear the phrase is misleading in the extreme and so i have to accuse cosmology, as a field, yes in the professional literature and in textbooks., by using terms like this, as misleading the public. Surely professional cosmologists know this pop science idea is out there and by using phrases like "the age of the universe:" they are clearly reincofrcing that misunderstanding. The planetary scientists changed their terminology for planets when they realized there was a problem with it. Cosmologists should do the same.
I expect you will say this is a matter of terminology not science. But how science interacts with the public understanding is an important of science itself as many universities are now recognising.

 

[jbriggs444]

But what follows from that is that age of the universe is unknown.

That is a bit overstated. My age is known and, in a court of law, relates to my birth. This holds regardless of whether that I can trace my existence prior that birth event.

 

[windy miller]

That is a bit overstated. My age is known and, in a court of law, relates to my birth. This holds regardless of whether that I can trace my existence prior that birth event.

but you aren't defined as the entirety of all existence are you? The universe is and so I think your analogy fails.

 

[PeterDonis]

you certainly get many textbooks and peer reviewed papers saying the age of the unviers is 13.8 billion years

Yes, after they clearly explain exactly what they mean by "the age of the universe". And with that clear explanation of what the term "the age of the universe" means to cosmologists, the statement is correct. But what cosmologists in textbooks and peer-reviewed papers mean by "the age of the universe" is not the same as what pop science presentations mean by that term. That's why you can't learn actual science from pop science presentations.

I expect you will say this is a matter of terminology not science. But how science interacts with the public understanding is an important of science itself as many universities are now recognising.

I agree that scientists often do not do a good job of describing scientific theories to the public. But that's not what textbooks and peer-reviewed papers are for. In textbooks and peer-reviewed papers, the important thing is to define and use precise terminology, and they do that. The question of what (imprecise, vague, but easier for non-scientists to grasp) terminology will best convey the gist of a scientific theory to the public is a different question.

 

[Hugh de Launay]

. . . it is said that universe started with a big bang and before it it was a point .so what can we say about where the point was , . . . where did that point exist . Or there was just "Nothing"?

-- in my humble opinion-- When we choose to believe in an idea that states the the nature of what existed before the big bang, or chose to believe in an idea of what exists beyond the edge (if any) of our universe (the one we live in), these choices are philosophical. Physics laws can contribute to the choices we make. For example, cosmologists chose to believe in a three dimensional space beyond the edge (if any) of our universe (As Peter Donis said in post #17 -- "The current thinking is that the universe is spatially infinite.") If the universe has no edge, of course, the cosmologists then believe our universe is infinite. The choice of a three dimension space beyond the edges (if any) of our universe gives our expanding universe a place to go other than nothingness. This is a logical choice because every physical event takes place within three dimensions. The belief in a three dimensional space can be selected to apply to space before the big bang, but time is left out of the picture because time started with the big bang. However, with a philosophical choice you can chose to believe in an eternal past.

 

[jbriggs444]

If the universe has no edge, of course, the cosmologist then believe our universe is infinite.

This is not correct. It is possible to have a topology which is finite but is without a boundary.

 

[phinds]

-- in my humble opinion--

which would be well served by studying some actual cosmology so as to rid yourself of the misunderstandings that there even COULD be an edge to the universe or something outside the universe and the idea that "no edge" implies infinite.

 

[Hugh de Launay]

This is not correct. It is possible to have a topology which is finite but is without a boundary

I accept your correction because I have not studied this kind of topology -- unless you mean curved surfaces that can be made to be unlimited in two dimensions. May I trouble you for an explanation or a reference?

 

[Hugh de Launay]

rid yourself of the misunderstandings that there even COULD be an edge to the universe or something outside the universe and the idea that "no edge" implies infinite.

What do you think I meant by "edge" and by "universe" and by "no edge"? How complicated do you want to get?

 

[jbriggs444]

I accept your correction because I have not studied this kind of topology -- unless you mean curved surfaces that can be made to be unlimited in two dimensions. May I trouble you for an explanation or a reference?

Consider as a simple example, a circle. It has one dimension. The points on the circle can be given coordinates from 0 degrees up to but not including 360 degrees. There is no edge. Yet it is finite. The circle wraps around on itself.

You may object that the circle is embedded in a two dimensional plane and that, on this plane, there is space outside the circle and, hence, a boundary. But that containing space is unnecessary. The mathematical abstraction exists with or without the containing space. It is perfectly well expressed as above -- the range of coordinates from 0 up to but not including 360 degrees along with a rule that the "0" end is adjacent to the "almost 360" end. That is an example of a finite one dimensional "manifold".

A gentle introduction to this sort of thing is "Sphereland". https://www.amazon.com/dp/0064635740/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[DaveC426913]

Consider as a simple example, a circle. It has one dimension. The points on the circle can be given coordinates from 0 degrees up to but not including 360 degrees. There is no edge. Instead, the circle wraps around on itself.

To riff on jbriggs' example:

By extension it applies to the 3-dimensional universe. The universe can be wrapped around upon itself so that, if you travel in one direction long enough, you will (in theory) arrive back at your destination.

The naive image of this assumes that the curvature occurs in a higher 4th dimension, but that is not true - it does not require such a 4th dimension to do so.

 

[Hugh de Launay]

The mathematical abstraction exists without the containing space.

Thanks a lot for your explanation. Is such an abstraction applied to the "edge" (if any) of our universe?