A question about before the big bang?

[enderw]

In the beginning there could only have been nothing, right? Then something happened(probably the big bang). So does this prove that something can come from nothing? Would this mean that there is some probability of this "something" occuring from a nothing state and since this nothing state has nothing to do but wait for this infinitismal probability to occur a universe will always eventually appear out of nothing?<br />

 

[alkalin]

Only math jargon would concur here. <br /><br />Beware.... math is not necessarily reflective of reality.

 

[Leovinus]

If space and time are two dimensions of the same thing, and if both were created at the same time in the Big Bang, then how can you even describe a time before time or space before space? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mooware]

Stevew33<br /><br />Yep, Me thinks that pretty well sums it up. We don't know. Doesn't mean we won't find out. Just for now, we don't know.<br /><br />

 

[enderw]

I know we don't know but we do know that we are here, and as such the universe exists: <br /><br />So either <br /><br />A) There was nothing and then out of that came something.<br /><br />B) There was always something and always will be. (I really dislike the eternal contraction and expansion theory)<br />

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Well, we don't know what was "before" because we can't theorize that "far back."<br /><br />The closest we can come is the beginning of the "Planck Era." (Using standard Big Bang theory.) This is 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Planck Time (10^-43 seconds) is currently the smallest time-slice we can measure.<br /><br />So, cosmologists/physicists/et al. are limited as to how "far back" they can go because they are constrained by the limitations of the tools they can use.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[enderw]

Leovinus: If you take away time then I would imagine all probablistic chances occur at once and so poof you get a universe.

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">A) There was nothing and then out of that came something. <br /><br />B) There was always something and always will be. (I really dislike the eternal contraction and expansion theory) <br /><br /></font><br /><br />What about our universe resulting from a collision of two other universes (dimensions)? i.e. as in String theory?<br /><br />

 

[enderw]

Mooware: Yes I am aware of the collision of Universes theory, but I would think that would fall into category B. Thats why I tried to not use the word Universe but instead "something". What created those Universes after all.

 

[Leovinus]

I think we can all accept the concept of Absolute Zero -- the coldest temperature that there can possibly be. Could the Universe of space/time also have an Absolute Zero -- a point in space time which you cannot precede? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wisefool]

We don't know exactly "what" was before the Big Bang, but we do know that something was "before." There are various explanations, such as the intersection of branes in string theory. There is the everlasting expansion/contraction theory, and many other variants. There is also the Unmoved Mover theological explanation which is highly popular among those who care not to think deeply.<br /><br />Behind all of this is the question of "first cause." Even if God (god?) is the first cause of OUR Big Bang, what was the "first cause" of God?<br /><br />I am reminded of the professor who was explaining the origin of the universe in historical terms, and turned to the historical idea of the Earth resting on the back of a turtle, which was itself resting on another dimension supported by another turtle. There was a little old lady in the audience who stood up and said: "It's turtles all the way down."

 

[enderw]

If heat death is the way this universe goes, does that mean eventually we will get a Bose-Einstein condensate out of the universe? And if all the atoms go to one spot wouldn't that trigger a big bang?

 

[rogers_buck]

A lot of thought is going into pre-bang physics these days. The current thinking that I like is that our three dimensions were curled up like the higher-order dimensions of string theory. The thinking is that the tiny incredibly hot universe was subject to sudden expansion of hundreds of orders of magnitude because of gravity suddenly becoming a repulsive force. Special relativity tells us that pressure is equivalent to mass and thus negative pressure is equivalent to repulsive gravity. Einstien's cosmological constant fudge factor was an excellent tool for the mechanics of inflation.<br /><br />Prior to the expansion of the universe the dimensions of space time were plank scale. Random quantum fluctuations in density at these scales were greatly magnified during inflation. So the irony is that the only way we have to image a plank scale quantum structure at this time is by looking at the largest structures observable, the universe. Spread across the skies is a snap-shot of these density distributions turned into galaxies for our easy viewing.<br /><br />Along with the fine detail of density distributions the Higgs field was likewise frozen (so to speak) with the properties it now has. The Higgs field is responsible for the property we observe as mass. Along with the Higgs field the arrow of time for our universe was also set. The entropy of the early pre-bang universe must have been verry low. That is why real time flows in the direction that we perceive it to flow in this universe.<br /><br />Prior to inflation is it appropriate to speak of real-time when real-time is clearly a special circumstance of imaginary time constrained by end conditions?<br /><br />For example, lets assume that a pre-bang universe exists as a set of particles in a given set of quantum states S1. These particles will transition to state S2. Imagine the imaginary time between state S1 and state S2 being a globe with S1 the north pole and S2 the south pole. The increasing diameter of th

 

[rogers_buck]

Before the big bang is no different than after the big bang so long as we have the tools in the form of a good working theory. For example, the unification of the nuclear SF and EM forces is an example of pre-bang physics. M-Theory, though very much a work in progress, is shedding light on the physics of the pre-bang universe. The barrier that existed previously was the singularities that developed when QM and GR were combined. With M-Theory, these singularities cancel and the full power of QM and GR is harnessed within the framework.<br /><br />Physics no longer regards the big bang as a theory of cosmic origins, but rather as a theory of inflation (just one event). Unlike the big bang, clues about this part of the universes history will be forthcoming from the smallest scales and the largest instruments ever made, the super coliders.

 

[alokmohan]

Absolutely correct.But big bang thory has a rival in quasisteady state. Then time is eternal.Universe had no beginning no end.

 

[alokmohan]

I read in Patric moore also.Are you psedoname of Patrick Moore?

 

[rogers_buck]

To my knowledge, Hoyle's latest steady state cosmology doesn't pass its tests:<br />"1. It must explain the redshift magnitude relation for galaxies, the observations of counts of radio sources and galaxies, the data on angular size redshift relation and<br />the evidence on the variation of surface brightness of galaxies with redshift.<br />2. It must give a theory for the origin of the microwave background, including its observed spectrum, isotropy and small scale inhomogeneities.<br />3. It must account for light nuclear abundances which cannot be otherwise understood within the framework of stellar evolution."<br /><br />The theory doesn't calculate the CBR temperature accurately and has to resort to some pretty far fetched mechanisms to explain anissotropy in the CBR. Here's a good paper that describes the theory:<br /><br />http://www.iisc.ernet.in/pramana/dec1999/c3.pdf<br /><br />The big bang theory (hot big bang) is similarly accurate in describing our universe as we see it but cheats in describing the CBR temperature (you tell it). <br /><br />Hot big bang is old news though. This theory has been supplanted by Inflation theories which consider the big bang to have been precursed by a symetry breaking event that spontaneously occured throughouth the inflated universe. Inflation being triggered in the first place by a super-cooled condition where the temperature of the universe cooled below the symetry breaking limit without symetry being broken which resulted in negative energy/pressure (repulsive gravity).<br /><br />This theory passes its tests better than the hot big bang because it produces an identical event (Friedman model) and has the potential of nailing down the details of the CBR. <br /><br />Inflation based on quantum gravitation theory or M-Theory does not have a singularity at its origin. These theories incorporates Feynman's sum over histories where you calculate the probable his

 

[alokmohan]

Big bang theory is mystic in nature. suddenly matter came out of nothing.It is God said let there be big bang type theory.JVNarlikar says so.

 

[rogers_buck]

Big bang has matter pouring forth from the infinite density singluarity as predicted by the Friedman model. Cooling is adiapatic in that case. (-;<br /><br />The free lunch comes from inflation. You get all this space for free and the matter to fill it just because... The math all works out though, so why not?<br />

 

[alokmohan]

OF COURSE IT EXPLAINS AND WORKS.SO IT MAY BE RIGHT ALSO.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">rogers_buck - What if life (maybe us) was responsible for altering or engineering the S2 states? How would that look? I think the answer is that it would look like "invention". No invention is produced without a supportive history. If our technology (or someone elses) one day creates cosmic scale machines by ordering the vaccuum then the final states S2 will be engineered. </font><br /><br />Your idea on the S1 and S2 states is interesting. Just for discussion sake, what if it is impossible to know initial moment of "Bang" and it's origin? Suppose, when we reach Planck time, that any further discovery of initial conditions collapses the wavefront of "reality." After all, this priniciple is a foundation on which we've built much of our science. Suppose that by peering into the quantum state of the Universe, we reach a point where further knowledge is impossible because such observation would violate the "rules" of physics. The Universe would, of necessity, have to transform. Since the transformation would occur, regardless of "time" it would also transform the observer. The paradox could not exist, thus, we can not "know."<br /><br />Now, we can determine if something exists within a certain range of possibilties. That is basically what we are doing now. However, the more constraints placed upon the variables being observed, the more inaccurate the final prediction is. So, when we reach Planck time, we have limited the probabilities to those constraints which satisfy all observable conditions without violating any "rules."<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">There was always something and always will be. (I really dislike the eternal contraction and expansion theory)</font><br /><br /><br />But maybe eternity is in fact finite - perhaps 40 or 50 trillion years.<br /><br />To our frame of reference, 40 or 50 trillion years would seems like an infinite period of time.

 

[rogers_buck]

Hmm. I think we might be on the same page here, but let me develop the model a bit more and see if you concur.<br /><br />I'm now using the Quantum Gravitation/M-Theory model with sum over histories producing a curved space-time that is a globe with a few extra dimensions. In this model imaginary time is euclidean (directionally symetric). <br /><br />Plank time in your post is the Friedberg model projected time when the universe would have been a singularity. But according to Inflation this point would not have existed in real-time, only imaginary time. This is reinforced by that time being a singularity.<br /><br />So to paraphrase what you are positing in the context of this theory, knowing the history of the S1 state in imaginary time will cause it to transition to S2.<br /><br />My conjecture was that a technology might be developed that would allow humans/critters the ability to modify S2 and thereby alter all the histories at any point on the space-time globe.<br /><br />Your conjecture and my conjecture are the same thing but you have suggested a possible technology for engineering S2, which is interesting. Let's think about that technology a bit.<br /><br />Presently our technology doubles every four-five years now. A couple years ago it was every seven years. Before that it was every decade, every 50 years, every 200 years, and then 1000 years. This is a rather steep exponential curve.<br /><br />Presently our technology makes use of Electronics and is poised to begin using Spintronics and nano-scale structures, and organic chemistry to store its information. Information seems to be what technology is for, much like our bodies made of from refined information the goal is self contained and seems counter to entropy. My point in all this is what happens if that exponential curve keeps rising steeper and steeper. Eventually there will be a super machine that fills the universe and is made of the vacuum itself with a singular purpose to contain all the informati

 

[nissasa]

"So does this prove that something can come from nothing?" <br /><br />I read an article once that talked about how virtual particles can be "borrowed". <br /><br />So from a universe with 0.. you create one negative particle at point A. Then create one positive particle at point B. Now your universe has two "particles" from nothing while still having a net energy of 0. Which still follows the rule of energy not being created or destroyed.

 

[rogers_buck]

The 10^80 particles in the universe were created out of energy during the inflationary phase (prior to the hot big bang looking thing).<br /><br />The total energy of the universe is -0-, since the universe is made out of positive energy matter and negative energy gravitational field. The negative gravitational energy cancels the positive energy of the matter. <br /><br />Multiples of zero are still zero, so you can multiply the amounts of both positive energy matter and negative energy gravity during the inflationary phase without violation of conservation of energy. <br /><br />This trick is not available during normal expansion (damped by gravity) like we experience today. It only happens during the inflationary phase since the super-cooled energy remains constant as space-time expands.