Nothingness, pre-Big Bang

[robina_williams]

In astronomical terms, would the nothingness before the Big Bang be the same as a "void"? Or does a "void" in astronomy mean something else, please? Can I use the words interchangeably in a pre-Big Bang sense?

 

[kyle_baron]

Void of what? If void of time, and matter, then I would answer yes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

That really is a question of a metaphyscial nature. Something that is beyond our capabilities to observe or study, much less understand. It's irrelavent to the sciences, but still a burning question scientists yearn to answer. Kinda hard to study 'nothingness'. <br /> <br />Before the Big Bang isn't even the lack of something to be considered nothing. Time started ticking forward with the BB. If this is true, then it is meaningless to discuss what happened before. There is no 'before'. <br /><br />Of course, this begs the question as to what caused the BB to happen. Who knows? Certainly not me. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />It think your best bet when referencing 'before the BB' is just to simply say "before the BB". No noun or adjective in our language can describe it.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[newtonian]

derekmcd - Yes, you could digress into metaphysics or philosophy, or scientific speculations. <br /><br />I prefer extrapolating back in harmony with the laws and properties which have been scientifically observed.<br /><br />As you note, assuming time began at the origin of the universe leaves the question of how the Big Bang was caused, or more generally: how the origin of our universe was caused.<br /><br />The problem with assuming all time began at the big bang is that you are forced to contradict the observed scientific principle of cause and effect.<br /><br />This is because observation proves that cause and effect proceeds during time. <br /><br />Therefore cause and effect cannot proceed without time.<br /><br />Therefore, I posit that time existed before the big bang and independent of our universe specific space time.<br /><br />I call this primordial time - the time during which cause and effect, plus mechanisms [one of many hypothesized by scientiists], caused the origin of our universe.<br /><br />And also there is zero scientific evidence that our universe was created from nothing. This conclusion absolutely contradicts the observed law of conservation of matter and energy.<br /><br />Therefore the belief that our universe was formed from nothing is unscientific - comparable to metaphysics and philosophies which ignore actual observations.<br />

 

[newtonian]

robina_williams - Have you ever heard of semantics?<br /><br />The problem with your question is that these words have more than one definition.<br /><br />I.e.: void;; nothing.<br /><br />For example, the Bible at Job 26:7 states God hung the earth upon nothing - which ih Hebrew basically means empty space. Yet the Bible also states earth is "hung," and other verses confirm earth is firmly in place.<br /><br />Coupled with Biblical astronomy is Job 38, it is indicated that stellar bonds can either hold fast or be loosened - yet, like earth, these stars have "nothing' between them to bind them.<br /><br />Isaac Newton, who believed in the Bible and Science, determined details about gravity - which is "nothing" in one sense of the word, but sometihing in another sense.<br /><br />Gravity can somehow be propagated though an absolute vacuum, it does not need the density of matter existing in the IGM (intergalactic medium). Whether there are actually gravitions in an absolute vacuum is unknown.<br /><br />So we could say that gravity travels through the void of space, and therefore this void is not absolute.<br /><br />In contrast, Jude 13 states in an illustration that some dark stars are in eternal darkness with no set course.<br /><br />This may mean that these stars have escaped not only the light of our universe, but also the gravity of our universe.<br /><br />That would be a more absolute void than any location within any of the many light cones in our universe, assuming faster than light infaltion models are accurate [as FTL inflation would cause multiple exclusive light cones [not necessarily absolutely exclusive.]<br /><br />In summary - it depends on how absolute you are meaning (definitions, semantics) when using either "nothing" or "void." <br /><br />In respects to how our universe was created:<br /><br />It is in harmony with scientific observations to believe our universe was created in harmony with the scientific principle of cause and effect and in harmony with the law of con

 

[derekmcd]

<i>"As you note, assuming time began at the origin of the universe..."</i><br /><br />Actually, I avoided say "time began" for that very reason. What I was alluding to when I said "time began ticking forward" is time may have still been there, but wrapped in its dimension upon itself infinitely (call it a singularity if ya like).<br /><br />Of course, this doesn't really solve what caused everything to "unwrap". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[newtonian]

derekmcd - Ok, I misunderstood you - sorry about that.<br /><br />I do not believe a singularity could contain all of the energy required to create our universe.<br /><br />However, it could have emanated from something akin to a singularity - involving intersecting dimensions.<br /><br />Consider, for example, a collision of branes model for the origin of our universe - which is one of many models hypothesized by scientists.<br /><br />Branes with dimension(s) could intersect in one of many shapes, such as a one dimensional straight or curved line. Similar to how tent cloths can intersect in a tent (compare the model at Isaiah 40:22 whereby our universe is stretching out like a fine gauze but is also compared to a tent.)<br /><br />I know that is quite a stretch (pun intended).<br /><br />One way branes, or multiple fabrics of multiple spacetime from mutliple dimensions or branes or universes, could intersect is:<br /><br />At a point.<br /><br />Picture two sheets (branes) colliding edge on each with only two dimensions (zero thickness). In that case the intersection point will exist but have zero dimensions.<br /><br />It will resemble a singularity!<br /><br />This could also be true if the brane has more dimensions, but the collison occurs only in one or two dimensions each such that the colliding point resembles a singularity.<br /><br />However, the amount of energy released from this collision may somehow cause multiple dimensions in view of also the interaction of the space/times of the colliding branes.<br /><br />BTW - I percieve in the laws and fine tuned properties of our universe that this was not a mere chance collision of branes, but rather was directed and fine tuned intelligently by God.<br /><br />Of course, that is just one way our universe may have been created [by God] - hopefully as more data pours in we can narrow down the various models and understand more specifically and definitively how our universe was created.

 

[robina_williams]

Thank you all for your answers. I was thinking pre-singularity, and I think I'll assume that I can use both 'nothing' and 'void' as I was thinking 'before time and matter as we know them' existed.

 

[derekmcd]

If you were left with no choice... "nothing" might be a better choice as "void" might imply there is something surrounding the void. <br /><br />Even still, 'nothing' implies the lack of something and before the BB there was no something to be lacked.<br /><br />That made no sense <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[alkalin]

In my view the failure of big bang math is that at the moment a thing called nothing blew up and created the universe as we know it, there is no reference in the math for cause. There is no reference to pre-time or pre-space. These would be considered non-science and very speculative, so have little notice in current theory.<br /><br />Trying to explain the universe is where math theorists are milking the teats of fiction, filling many buckets with it. <br /><br />Why does a photon exist? Why does matter and gravity exist? Why does the universe exist or where did it come from? There is no known math yet to explain any of those questions. In science we only know what we can measure. But the interesting questions in metaphysics are not considered science. So we sure can be free to speculate all we like on these issues in that context.<br /><br />A different view is that of the quasi-steady state. The universe of matter and energy as we know it had a beginning, but much further in the past than what is the current institutional view. And it did preexist in a form of energy mainly unknown to us prior to the creation of matter as we know it. <br /><br />One reason I like this theory is that there is far less fictional math necessary to try to explain many non-issues, such as dark energy. A basic assumption by Hubble and others about the cause of the red shift of light would have to be abandoned, however, and that is very unlikely after so much has been generated based on this false assumption.<br /><br />

 

[robina_williams]

That's the thing, isn't it: "matter as we know it." And time and space as we know them. Well, I need some impression of the singularity exploding to give us a universe, so I wanted "nothing" that can become "something." derekmcd made a good point that a void might be surrounded by some matter.

 

[newtonian]

robina_williams - Were you aware that many scientists consider the possibility of multiple universes - sometimes called "multiverses?"<br /><br />For example, Linde, who postulated inflation theory, <br />also considered our universe and others were caused by some mechanism involving pre-existing scaler fields.<br /><br />The Biblical model also posits multiple heavens (plural), and has no equivalent word for universe, with its singular prefix "uni."<br /><br />Many of these universes would have existed before our universe was created.<br /><br />The Biblical model may be interpreted to indicate our universe (heaven) is among many universes (heavens) within a much larger universe (heaven of the heavens) - to quote my source exactly:<br /><br />(1 Kings 8:27) . . .“But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you;. . .<br /><br />So, with both the Bible and many sicentists indicating multiple universes, why would one assume there was nothing before our universe was created?<br /><br />In other words, what scientific basis would one have for making such an assumption? <br /><br />On nothing becoming something, why not rather hypothesize cause and effect in harmony with the law of conservation of matter and energy, and start with energy becoming matter?

 

[newtonian]

alkalin - good post.<br /><br />Interesting that no one has mentioned thermodynamics, notably entropy, yet.<br /><br />OUr universe is evolving in harmony with the laws of thermodynamics.<br /><br />Likely the creation of our universe was also in harmony with the laws of thermodynamics.<br /><br />In that case, then, there would have to have been a very large input of energy at the origin of our universe to account for its thermodynamic state at origin! <br /><br />BTW - Has anyone calculated a ball park figure for the amount of energy involved with the creation of our universe?<br /><br />One would simply have to add the current amount of energy in our universe + the energy equivalent of the mass of our universe using the formula e=mc^2.<br /><br />Yes, I know that dark matter and dark energy shoulc be factored in - but one could start simple and say greater than the sums of ordinary matter (in energy equivalent) and ordinary energy.<br /><br />What amazes me is how fine tuned all those factors are - e.g. the relative strengths of the four forces of physics which are fine tuned to allow stars and life as we know it to exist in our universe!

 

[robina_williams]

Yes, the idea of multiverses is fascinating.<br /><br />As to dimensions: the dimensions would have to have emerged at the time the singularity exploded, wouldn't they, as the clouds of dust and gas would have to have somewhere to explode into?

 

[alokmohan]

Spacetime is one.No independet time or space.spacetime started at big bang.So nothin befoe big bang.

 

[alkalin]

Hi Newtonian,<br /><br />There is a divide between the math and metaphysics ideas on the explosion of nothing. It is almost like there are two universes of thought.<br /><br />Math ignores many issues such as what you point out, thermodynamics, pre space and time, and cause. To me this is like the magic tooth fairy. There is no logic behind it. Even CMB is caused by a well known process other than big bang.<br /><br />The most important issues are the non-math issues as far as I’m concerned, and they MUST have some kind of logic to them. A number of years ago someone proved mathematically (should I now trust this word) that two universes could coexist within the same framework of time and space. Well, this may indicate the possibility of many more.<br /><br />The core of science is the measurement of things, and there is a very good field of applied math that very definitely helps us understand what has been measured. But when math is extended into trying to explain things not measured is where it is in serious trouble. <br /><br /><br />

 

[cretdob]

The concept of nothingness implies there are no mathematical equations to describe it. How can you describe nothing?<br /><br />I tend to believe that there are tremendous forces at the root of the Big Bang. If we can continue to advance into millions of years or eons, we may unlock the mystery of that moment. I suspect there's a law behind it all. <br /><br />I don't think we'll find nothingness. But I do think it's possible we could encounter a wall in space in which nothing further seems to exist. We'll have to leave it to future advancements in telescopy and perhaps other means before we can search the pre-BB events. <br /><br />Nothingness is a real conundrum in that many of us think this should be the expected or naturally occuring state of existence. We are mystified that anything should exist simply becase we strongly believe nothingness was the starting point. Until we abandon that POV, we're stuck at square one. <br /><br />Also, nothingness is not even a state. Consider that a state is a series of conditions or tension. Nothingness possesses nothing of any kind whether it be space itself, time, and substance.<br /><br />Even worse, Nothingness cannot exist. The moment it exists, it becomes something. Any statement made regarding nothingness is nonsensical because we can attribute no attribute of any kind to it. Any referent to it defines it and therefore nullifies it. It can't be and cannot even be spoken of. <br /><br />Hence, I believe somethingness is what is. The mechanism behind it seems impossible to comprehend. What is that mechanism or "phenomenon?"

 

[newtonian]

Hi alkalin! <br /><br />I kind of agree, except I think one should continue to use math to determine the cause.<br /><br />According to the law of conservation of matter and energy, there must have been an input of energy at the location of origin (perhaps a point, perhaps a 1-dimensional line, straight or curved, etc. - my favorite is intersection of interacting dimensions at a point.) that is exactly equal to the energy released at the Big Bang (or origin, creation of our universe.)<br /><br />I agree there must be a logical, scientifically tenable explanation - I also believe intelligent design by our Creator was involved -but that He used the scientific laws and properties he created such that the explanation is in harmony with those created laws and properties. To me that is not metaphysics, but rather science - granted including things not yet discovered or details not yet discovered.<br /><br />On other universes in connection with our universe's space/time but involving other dimensions - see String theory models and parallel universe models. I do not believe parallel universes exist, but certainly consider that other dimensions may exist - and other universes may not simply lie beyond the 'void' beyond the 'edge' [there are many edges, e.g. the time dependent radius of slower than light matter, the time dependent radius of light, the time dependent radius of FTL, but finite, expansion, the edge of all matter originating at the big bang including that which has escaped the light and gravity of our universe (compare Jude 13 - dark stars [black holes?] in eternal darkness with no set course].<br /><br />Other universes might also be distant in direction in dimensions separate from our length, height, width (3-D).<br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

alokmohan - Sorry, but I disagree. <br /><br />What evidence do you have that there is no time independent of our universe specific space/time?<br /><br />How could cause and effect proceed in the cause of the creation of our universe if no independent time existed?<br /><br />Do you have any evidence that no other universe existed before our universe was created?<br /><br />Why do you reject the law of conservation of matter and energy in explaining the origin of our universe - such that you conclude our universe was created from nothing?

 

[newtonian]

cretdob - I agree that scientists who invoke 'nothing' as an explanation are explaining nothing. (pun intended.)<br /><br />Some scientists invent their own 'miracle' to avoid belief in God.<br /><br />However, science has discovered a plethora of evidence that the properties of our universe have been fine tuned to allow for stars and life to exist.<br /><br />I could detail the scientific evidence if you would like.<br /><br />For this post I will simply mention a few:<br /><br />1. The expansion rate of our universe - extremely close to omega=1. Very slightly faster at origin (add the more complex inflationary stage) and our universe would have dispersed by now and no stars or life would exist. Very slightly slower and our universe would have collapsed by now.<br /><br />2. The fine tuning of the 4 forces of physics. For example:<br /><br /> 2A. The fine tuning of the relative strength of gravity to the other forces.<br /><br />3. The existence of laws. Called in the Bible: statutes of the heavens:<br /><br />(Job 38:31-33) 31 Can you tie fast the bonds of the Ki´mah constellation, Or can you loosen the very cords of the Ke´sil constellation? 32 Can you bring forth the Maz´za·roth constellation in its appointed time? And as for the Ash constellation alongside its sons, can you conduct them? 33 Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens, Or could you put its authority in the earth?<br /><br />Laws or statutes cannot come to exist without a lawgiver or lawmaker.<br /><br />For example, the law of gravity plus other factors we do not fully understand (notably how our universe is being stetched out like a fine gauze - as stated in Isaiah 40:22) are involved in whether stars in constellations remain gravitationally bound or are loosened as stated in the above quote.<br /><br />Note that 'bringing forth' the various constellations also involves 'statutes of the heavens.'<br /><br />In short - all things in our universe proceed according to created laws and properties - and many

 

[newtonian]

robina_williams - Yes, multiverses are fascinating - for example a model based on the following:<br /><br />(1 Kings 8:27) 27 “But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you;. . .<br /><br />One of my favorite models involves the following possible interpretation of the above quote:<br /><br />Our universe (heaven) is one of many universes (heavens) that are within a much larger universe (heaven of the heavens). <br /><br />However, God dwells in still another heaven, and cannot be contained in the heaven of the heavens.<br /><br />This may not be simply because God is too large to fit. It may mean God's form involves more dimensions then are contained in our universe.<br /><br />I do not know, btw - I simply consider scientifically tenable possibilities.<br /><br />Certainly, if our universe is one of many within a much larger universe, then dimensions already existed for our univerrse to expand within before our universe was created.

 

[cretdob]

Newtonian: I appreciate your response mightily. I am aware of the pro-design arguments although not as thoroughly as you appear to be. Science is considered a secular endeavor by many, which seeks not to prove the existence of an ultimate being but rather to prove the existence of mechanisms and processes. It is assumed that intelligence is irrelevant to being and that patterns and order are simply naturally occuring over time due to ensuing averages of probability. Sure, you'll have a monkey typing a novel completely without awareness of his creation, all this with the benefit of infinity on his side or the book's. However, this monkey-authored book would be pointless unless chance further creates a random but sentient reader who happens to walk by when the monkey completes his novel. If you say there are infinite possibilities, the next step seems to dictate that they all happen. How can anyone sensibly refute this contention if they take infinity as a given?<br /><br />The trouble is, Newtonian, that I still inwardly harbor a strange anti-God skepticism. Why should this be so? You can see it in almost everyone regardless of their piety. Remember the statement? "Many profess theism, but live their lives as practical atheists." <br /><br />I think it is so hard to believe in the fantastic. It's like believing in some incredibly amazing feat of magic. It just can't be real, we say. There must be some trick to it. And I say: "God is incomprehensible to me; therefore, how can I believe he exists?"<br /><br />Well, the scientists will no doubt continue as they will. Looking for God by microscopic beings like us is probably futile on a quantitative scale. We have to just infer God, don't we? So it's interpretation and it's your game and your take on the subject. A common definition, if God can be defined, may be forever elusive and God, therefore, beyond our sensory grasp. Perhaps there's another realm in which we can know him. In the meantime, get out

 

[alkalin]

Newtonian, I kind of agree also, but in terms of using math to explain where everything came from without logic is unacceptable to me. Perhaps I also should have said that current cosmology theory is like religion. You cannot take the math behind the theories of expansion or inflation and test it in a lab. My notion of metaphysics is meant to represent the seeking of first cause.<br /><br />I much prefer the use of Creation rather than the bogus Big Bang description term. If a parallel universe of energy exists, there is the strong possibility that a Creator could change some of that energy into substance such as we know, so there would be conservation going on. Notice the idea of a parallel universe does suggest the location of GOD and other deity. But we cannot establish very much of first cause through science. Most of this information must come through revelation.<br /><br />I also think string theory needs much more polishing before it can adequately describe reality at a level that would make more sense. But at least it is a beginning to try some sort of explanation such as this or Branes or some other ideas, because no one really yet knows. <br /><br />On your comment on dark stars, yes I would agree, there are countless numbers of them because the universe has been here much longer than the lifetime of stars, so many have cooled off, and of course there are the black holes also. But how can we see something that is dark? They can be verified to exist by starting with the local dark stars that were recently announced. Many emit IR radiation which is much weaker than visible light, so they very likely will not be seen at more distance from us. And also there are gravity effects from them. Galaxies have them abundantly which is why they spin faster than expected. Cosmologists call it dark matter, which is yet a mystery to them.<br /><br />

 

[oscar1]

A 'void' is something, or 'nothing' so you wish, that would require time to observe/notice it. Whatever really happened at the beginning, if indeed there was a beginning as in 'something from nothing', is of no consequence to beings that require 'time' to exist. As hard to absorb as this may sound, it basically means that the universe was there 'always', whether or not there was a big bang.

 

[cretdob]

I can see there is a word problem here. No-thing-present is a state I can believe to exist. There may be such voids throughout space or the universe.<br /><br />I guess I'm faced with this dead end concept of "nothingness." How do I distinquish that from a "no-thing" state? <br /><br />You're causing me to reconsider this concept. I'll have to ponder this further.<br /><br />I think what I'm looking for, stevehw33, is something which explains/defines/describes/articulates Non-Being as opposed to Being. <br /><br />Hmmmm. I think that's it. It's really Non-Being that I am trying to get a handle on. I will pursue this further later. Thank you for your exposition.