# We May Finally Understand the Moments Before the Big Bang

#### rod

Alan Guth periodically reports on the many particles created and used in the inflation model of the Big Bang. A good example is magnetic monopoles, as abundant as hydrogen and could be used to make stars too I read an interesting report today on the Hubble constant, https://phys.org/news/2019-11-expansion-universe-dont.html

Interesting folks. Another report indicating the Hubble constant, H0 is a miscreant ☹ I like this in the report:
"It looks like a small difference, only 7%, but it is significant considering that we are talking about precisions of 1 or 2% in the value of the Hubble constant," as emphasised by Licia Verde, who jokes: "It is like trying to thread a 'cosmic needle' where its hole is the H0 value measured today and the thread is brought by the model from the furthest Universe we can observe: the cosmic microwave background." In addition, she points out some of the consequences of the discrepancy: "The lower the H0 is, the older the Universe is. Its current age is calculated at about 13.8 billion years considering that the Hubble constant is 67 or 68 km/s/Mpc; but if its value were 74 km/s/Mpc, our universe would be younger: it would be approximately 12.8 billion years old." I check info like this using the cosmology calculators, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html

I used the #1 at the link and found an age for the Hubble time about 12.9 billion years old using 74 km/s/Mpc. However that is for the flat model based upon inflation. The open universe shows 10.746 years old, changing no other parameters. Looks like the cosmology department has wiggle room. I think the inflation folks enjoy some wiggle areas too in the math department

#### rod

Okay, 10.746 years old is 10.746E+9 years old - my bad.

#### Dwight Huth

BANNED
You can't consider our Universe to be an infinity small that expanded because the space around the small particle that was our Universe was infinitely infinite prior to the Big Bang.

For all intense and purposes all of this talk about points of infinity sounds like a black hole.

Truthseeker007

#### rod

Dwight Huth, interesting view. It appears that 3-D space was infinite in size before the Big Bang event when our universe started out smaller than an electron in diameter. This is a critical assumption I feel in cosmology models like the multiverse scenario. My concern. Is inflation and the Big Bang model as reliable and secure science as the astronomy that resulted in the overthrow of the geocentric universe and acceptance of the heliocentric solar system? Keep in mind that the geocentric doctrine featured the immovable Earth, the Sun moved around the Earth, including all other lights in the firmament and the Earth did not move. I see inflation and Big Bang - much more tentative when compared with this standard of testing.

#### Mikelso

Taking us back to the very moment of the big bang is a point in time and a place, just before the flash point of the explosion where was that spot located ? if nothing existed can something from nothing occur in physics ? where did this place exist? Am I the only one thinking like this? Please take it easy on me I'm a newbie but this has always been on my mind since I heard about the " Big bang"

#### rod

Mikelso, you said "just before the flash point of the explosion where was that spot located ?" From my understanding of the Big Bang model, there is no *spot or center* from which the universe evolved out of thus there is no explosion from a center point expanding outward, 3-D space created instantaneously, everywhere with matter/energy spread, everywhere. If there was, the universe we see today has a center and Big Bang rejects this concept. You can get an open or flat universe (inflation is flat cosmology). Today astronomers see the cosmic microwave background radiation, but in the Big Bang model, another universe or multiverse exist far beyond the CMBR where matter/energy can exist in any form, it seems along with many different laws of science - it seems. Alan Guth et al in inflation theory - argue what seems to be the universe created from nothing but now inflation theory combined with multiverse defines what was there before the Big Bang. I already discussed scientific testing and the geocentric teaching vs. heliocentric solar system testing and observations. I am glad this space.com report discussed the inflaton particles in inflation - something not commonly reported. In the Big Bang model, the first stars cold also be made of dark matter too, not just Population III stars composed chiefly of hydrogen, helium, and perhaps a little lithium. I read reports where these are *dark stars*

#### wingedhippo

The Universe/Nature, i.e. NOTHING & SOMETHING has no time point of its origin. So, just as you cannot determine the beginning of Nothing, you cannot determine the beginning of Something. And please bear in mind: NOTHING cannot create SOMETHING and SOMETHING cannot turn into NOTHING.

#### wingedhippo

1. Space-time is an irrational idea. Time (concept) cannot marry Space (physical reality).
2. Quote: "This is a speculative proposal description of a mechanism (Concept). To become a Theory must be explained using Math. "
No way. In physics, we explain. Maths does not explain anything. It describes.

#### Manuel Antolín

If protons and neutrons are assumed as being the first appearing , what about quarks?
This has not been taken in account in dealing with the "formation" of matter, as it looks a bit hard to imagine as a previous stage in the matter formation process.
If, as it is said and commonly accepted, 1/3 of energy phased into matter, and 1/6 of this matter phased into the normal matter as we see it, as the Universe was inflating / expanding, it should go of itself that the first phase of the matter conforming had to be the quark formation, as they are today conforming the matter as we know it.
TLDR: there is not real / final comprension of the origin of the Universe yet.

#### David-J-Franks

Taking us back to the very moment of the big bang is a point in time and a place, just before the flash point of the explosion where was that spot located ? if nothing existed can something from nothing occur in physics ? where did this place exist? Am I the only one thinking like this? Please take it easy on me I'm a newbie but this has always been on my mind since I heard about the " Big bang"
Hello, I'm the author of a book called 'Steady State of The Infinite', published on Amazon. I've been reading theories of the universe for about 30 years, whilst they are all very clever, I still haven't found a believable one, so I wrote my own called 'Steady State of The Infinite'. I think a lot of misunderstanding comes from treating the universe as the be-all and end-all of everything, there seems to be an inability to comprehend a bigger picture. I hope there's something here to answer your question. By starting off with some simple reasoning, I've built a more complete picture. (1) You can always point ahead and keep going, including beyond our universe – therefore space is infinite. In my book, I call all of space and everything in it 'The Infinite'. (2) Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means there has always been something – and that also means before the big bang!

So, if you now see things from the perspective of 'The Infinite' it all looks a bit simpler. For example, our universe can now be treated as an object in 'The Infinite' rather than being all of space. To proceed from here I quote from page 7 in my book;

“Now, if our universe came from a big bang and is expanding, it must have a centre and boundary or edge, if it has an age then it has a finite size. That means it's an object – objects exist in a space, they are not the creation of space as most theories suggest. Consequently, it can't be homogeneous or isotropic and so violates the much cherished 'cosmological principle', which assumes the universe is even and the same in all directions, and from any viewpoint, and has no centre. So, my version of the universe might look different from the centre than from the edge.”

And then from pages 8 and 9;

“If space is infinite it would be too bizarre to think our universe is the only matter in this infinite space.

If it is the only universe and it came out of a big bang, then the big bang would have been the beginning of time. The trouble with this idea is that, as argued in chapter 1, 'there has always been something' and that 'you can't have something from nothing' would imply that the initial contents of the big bang had always been there waiting indefinitely and just 13.8 billion years ago decided to explode into our universe.

What would have caused it to explode after waiting an infinite amount of time? Bizarre. One way around this would be to suggest that the universe collapses and then goes bang again in an endless cycle. Why would there be just one universe doing this with nothing in the rest of 'the infinite'? Again, too bizarre to believe.

Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume all of 'the infinite' contains matter and other universes. As there are no boundaries, and if it has always been there, it should by now be evenly distributed. If not, there would still be a flow of matter across 'the infinite', also bizarre.”

The endless cycle I mentioned is a mainstream theory called the 'cyclic universe'. However in my book, I've suggested why it doesn't make sense to me, so I created my own proposition to explain our universe's origin and fate. When I add in some more simple reasoning about 'information and order', 'cause and effect' and 'entropy', a more complete and mind-blowing picture emerges. Best wishes, David

#### rod

FYI. I read various reports on the multiverse, steady-state cosmology, finite vs. infinite space, open or flat universe expanding, etc. Presently the CMBR blocks our view from Earth using telescopes to see matter/energy and whatever form it is - beyond the CMBR. Galileo used his telescope to challenge geocentric doctrine by showing others that small lights moved around Jupiter - not the Earth. Current cosmology model(s) have a long way to go to match the solid, observational science of Galileo that helped overthrow the geocentric firmament and acceptance of the heliocentric solar system. I keep things like this in mind when I read about the origin of the universe and how big it may or not be or who claims to know what lies beyond the CMBR

BANNED
The Conglomerate - Universe Creation Theory

The BIG Bang-Bit Bang was a supermassive white hole – inflation expansion of energy/matter and information 13.8 billion years ago - spawned by a supermassive black hole at the heart of a galaxy in our parent universe. This duality combines general relativity’s singularities of infinite density in a ‘Cosmic Egg’ birth of this & all universes within The Conglomerate: multiverse without random bubble universes & parallel worlds. Our Universe exists inside the Planck density of that SBH & shares the same boundary/event horizon. That SBH-SWH phase transition was a quantum tunneling umbilical wormhole with energy/matter & info transformed/transferred, though scrambled & encoded. This Universe is 1-in-2 trillion+ offspring each with similar inherited physical constants. This 'simple' cause-and-effect cycle/circle of life – birth-life-death-transformation-rebirth - explains both infinite space and eternity. Reproduction is the simplest plan of continued existence for everything from cells to universes.

Last edited:

#### David-J-Franks

FYI. I read various reports on the multiverse, steady-state cosmology, finite vs. infinite space, open or flat universe expanding, etc. Presently the CMBR blocks our view from Earth using telescopes to see matter/energy and whatever form it is - beyond the CMBR. Galileo used his telescope to challenge geocentric doctrine by showing others that small lights moved around Jupiter - not the Earth. Current cosmology model(s) have a long way to go to match the solid, observational science of Galileo that helped overthrow the geocentric firmament and acceptance of the heliocentric solar system. I keep things like this in mind when I read about the origin of the universe and how big it may or not be or who claims to know what lies beyond the CMBR
Hi, I don't claim to know anything, I'm putting forward suggestions for readers to make their own minds up. I find it fun both speculating and reading other peoples ideas. I've tried hard to reason as much as possible, but at the end of the day, I, and proponents of even the mainstream theories still can't prove them. For me, it's finding what's most believable.

Since I can't believe any current theories I've created my own in a book, based on thirty years of reading other theories, applying my scientific knowledge and as much common sense as possible. For example my first proposition, “(1) You can always point ahead and keep going, including beyond our universe – therefore space is infinite.", would need something extraordinary to say otherwise. Granted it won't say what's beyond, but it says there is almost certainly a beyond of some sort.

Not knowing what's beyond the CMB hasn't put scientists off speculating and extrapolating into the past using the laws of physics. Indeed they claim to know with much confidence and great detail about every possible particle right back to the first 10 to the power minus 43 seconds of the universe, approx 380,000years before the CMB. I don't argue with these genius's.

Again my 2nd proposition - “(2) Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means there has always been something – and that also means before the big bang!” - Simple but hard to suggest otherwise. It doesn't say what was before, only that there was almost certainly something. By creating a series of simple propositions like these, I've managed to come up with a theory, I, and hopefully my readers can believe in.

My book is not about details, it's a broad framework, incorporating many other aspects, such as, 'information and order', 'cause and effect' and 'entropy', hopefully giving a complete and mind-blowing picture of existence.

Best wishes, David

#### rod

Okay, fun to speculate. What about the 2nd Law and increasing entropy? Black holes will dissipate over time, something before the big bang limited by the 2nd Law - could indicate that something is nothing and no work can be done to make the big bang. Many assumptions involved in cosmology. This discipline is not like the robust, observations of Galileo that showed the geocentric universe teaching could be false and follow up astronomy studies showing the heliocentric solar system is true. The scientific method - observable, testable, falsifiable too.

#### David-J-Franks

Okay, fun to speculate. What about the 2nd Law and increasing entropy? Black holes will dissipate over time, something before the big bang limited by the 2nd Law - could indicate that something is nothing and no work can be done to make the big bang. Many assumptions involved in cosmology. This discipline is not like the robust, observations of Galileo that showed the geocentric universe teaching could be false and follow up astronomy studies showing the heliocentric solar system is true. The scientific method - observable, testable, falsifiable too.
In my reply to Mikelso, post 12 above, I said:

“Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume all of 'the infinite' contains matter and other universes. As there are no boundaries, and if it has always been there, it should by now be evenly distributed. If not, there would still be a flow of matter across 'the infinite', also bizarre.”

So, because, as proposed, 'The Infinite' is full of other matter, our expanding universe will meet up with it and stop expanding! There are several possibilities from here; (1) the cyclic universe mentioned in post 12. (2) Our universe merges with the other matter, and, somehow a dense enough patch of matter forms then collapses in on itself and rebounds with another big bang to make a new universe. Bear in mind that on a smaller scale, in a nebula, matter is all the time collapsing in on itself to form new stars. (3) My main theory in my book, which has similarities to (2) but is more detailed and specific, with a surprising twist.

As for entropy, again, because I propose 'The Infinite' is full of other matter our expanding universe will meet up with it and stop expanding! So, in my theory called 'Steady State of The Infinite', I, therefore, suggest that entropy will stop increasing when this happens, and what's more that there's an upper maximum limit to entropy anywhere in 'The Infinite'! Also ruling out the possibility of a complete heat death of any universe!

Best wishes, David

#### rod

David, okay. *my theory* you indicated. I do observational astronomy using my telescopes and enjoy views of the Galilean moons and eclipse as well as transit events at Jupiter. Does your theory have observational evidence like this that was used to challenge the geocentric teachers by Galileo?

#### David-J-Franks

David, okay. *my theory* you indicated. I do observational astronomy using my telescopes and enjoy views of the Galilean moons and eclipse as well as transit events at Jupiter. Does your theory have observational evidence like this that was used to challenge the geocentric teachers by Galileo?
Hi, rod,

No theory about the beginning of the universe, including mine, can have such ridged evidence as you suggest. Applying your level of proof would demolish about half of mankind's so-called knowledge in all areas, including the big bang theory. So, I think there comes a time when you simply just have to believe that which has the strongest line of reasoning with or without evidence.

The big bang is the most accepted theory at the moment. This is derived partly because of the observation of the expanding universe and the CMB, but the rest is just reasoning, it's reasoning backwards all the way to the singularity. Even this theory can never be proved outright because no one will ever observe the Big Bang, it will always be a theory based on reasoning. I think any theory about the universe will ultimately have to be based on reasoning as there will never be enough evidence to prove anything outright.

My theory is based on strong reasoning. Many ideas in science are also based just on reasoning, all I'm doing is is saying if you can go one meter, you can go 2 metres and then you can go 3 metres, so, all the way to infinity, it's reasoning but not provable. It's also assumed that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe. This I don't think even has reasoning, it has a kind of reverse reasoning in that there's no reason to think otherwise.

As for my evidence, I am incorporating The Big Bang theory into mine, so any evidence that has, also goes towards mine. All I'm doing is extending the thinking behind the Big Bang and making it a broader explanation of existence to include what was before the Big Bang what's beyond our universe and what it's fate will be. Again by solid reasoning.

Most of my theory is built on my, hopefully, rock-solid, propositions 1 and 2 as previously mentioned in posts 12 and 15. The only leap of faith required is for proposition 3, about there being matter and universe's all over 'The Infinite'. If you accept 1 and 2, I'm not asking much for 3. All I then ask is for readers to decide whether our universe is the only one in 'The Infinite' and all of the rest of space from here to infinity is empty! Or all the rest of 'The Infinite' is full of stuff and other universe's. It would be a strange set of physical laws which gave rise to one universe here and absolutely nothing throughout the rest of 'The Infinite'. In other words, it's good reasoning to assume, if there's something here, there's something everywhere! Other main theories ask you to believe a lot more, for example: multiple dimensions, holographic principles (yes you're a hologram in that one), bubble universes, pure mathematical entities, colliding branes (needs 5 dimensions for that one), many-worlds theory, etc. All I can hope for is my readers find my reasoning the most believable.

If you accept 1, 2 and 3, then I think normal science can be applied again, such as 'cause and effect', 'information and order', etc., so many more conclusions can be deduced. In fact, with just a few more, of what I hope are solid reasons, I come to a much more detailed picture of the infinite which I find both believable and amazing. Overall, for me, it's a complete explanation, everything seems to fit and work together well. I'll leave the very fine details about particles etc. up to the very clever particle and theoretical physicists.

At the moment, I believe my line of reasoning is the strongest, so until someone comes up with a theory with a stronger line of reasoning or disproves my theory, I'm going to stick with it.

Do you know of any other universe/existence theories which have a stronger line of reasoning?

Best wishes, David

#### rod

David, thanks. You said "So, I think there comes a time when you simply just have to believe that which has the strongest line of reasoning with or without evidence."

This is something in science I do not accept and so I used the geocentric vs. heliocentric solar system debate to illustrate. Much of cosmology today falls short of hard, observational evidence and facts - my opinion. Concerning the Big Bang, I know there is three big pillars supporting, the CMBR, H/He ratio, and redshifts observed. Some of the debate and arguments look good, other areas like inflation, multiverse, VSL theory, etc. need more work (my opinion). In the mean time - I enjoyed some good views last night of 4 Vesta asteroid retrograding in Cetus and open star clusters M35 and NGC 2158 in Gemini. I used 10x50 binoculars and a 90-mm refractor telescope at 31x views. Have a good Thanksgiving David--Rod

BANNED
You can't consider our Universe to be an infinity small that expanded because the space around the small particle that was our Universe was infinitely infinite prior to the Big Bang.

For all intense and purposes all of this talk about points of infinity sounds like a black hole.
Singularities have infinite mass.

#### mauishaka

Has a total vaccume with nothing in exsistance been established yet? If yes then I see what your saying, something can't come from nothing, if not hmm how do you know if everything has not been organized by something we couldn't explain because our comprehention can't do so, remember the only reason we can see, hear, touch ,smell,and taste is consciousness why couldn't we be a experiment from a consciousness we could never understand?

#### David-J-Franks

Has a total vaccume with nothing in exsistance been established yet? If yes then I see what your saying, something can't come from nothing, if not hmm how do you know if everything has not been organized by something we couldn't explain because our comprehention can't do so, remember the only reason we can see, hear, touch ,smell,and taste is consciousness why couldn't we be a experiment from a consciousness we could never understand?
Good question, there's a lot in my book about space and its free because Amazon has a feature called 'Look Inside'. I agonised over this question and came to the conclusion that there's no such thing as nothing. In quantum mechanics, there's a 'vacuum energy' throughout the universe and 'quantum field theory' says all the basic particles have an underlying field to them. So it looks like current science would say there's no such thing as nothing. As above in my proposition that 'the infinite' is full of other universes I had to decide whether the space between universes was empty. In my chapter called 'Connectedness and uniformity', I came to the conclusion that if the laws of physics are the same throughout 'the infinite', then there must be a connection between universes to maintain this condition, which in turn means the space between them must be filled with something. There's much more step by step reasoning on this in that chapter. Other names for space fillings are - aether, quantum foam, quantum fields and the current dark energy. It looks like space is fully booked up!

#### Mental Avenger

Has a total vaccume with nothing in exsistance been established yet? If yes then I see what your saying, something can't come from nothing,
Many years ago I thought about this and came up with the following postulate. Considering that even the discussion of the Big Bang, which is something we cannot prove happened, is speculation, this is intended to provide an example of another way of looking at some of the phenomena we cannot currently explain.

Something from Nothing
Here is a idea of how the concept of something from nothing might be able to be explained using current physics, and not even complex physics at that.

Pardon me for getting extremely elementary here. Consider that we once thought of matter as being solid. Then we broke down matter into atoms, which have a small nucleus and consist mostly of empty space. So conventional matter was not solid after all, but consists of small bits of matter separated by a lot of space. We then broke down the protons and neutrons into smaller discrete "particles", with space between them. We can stop here or continue on for a few more layers, but that is irrelevant. At some point we would arrive at the "basic building blocks" of matter.

Now, consider that energy fields are rather easy to alter or disrupt by interaction with another field. However, as the energy field becomes smaller and more compact, it is easier for them to maintain their integrity. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that the basic building blocks of matter are not "matter" at all, but rather very small, very compact energy fields which close in upon themselves. Once created, these energy fields are self-sustaining, and due to their compact size and energy density, resist disruption by outside forces to the point of being virtually indestructible.

If a positive electrical charge is brought together with a negative electrical charge of equal intensity, they will cancel each other out, leaving nothing behind. The reverse should also be true, that equal and opposite charges can be created FROM nothing.

If the basic building blocks of matter are nothing more than very compact energy fields, it is possible that unlimited numbers of equal and opposite pairs of those fields could be created from nothing, using a catalyst.
At the point of creation (BB), all of the energy fields of one "flavor" were thrust into being in one half of this universe, and all the energy fields of the other "flavor" were thrust into being in the other half of this universe. OR, all of the energy fields still exist, but due to an inherent property of their configuration, they coexist without destructive interaction as different subatomic "particles".

Something from nothing. That may also answer the question of how matter can be converted to energy so easily.

Last edited:

#### David-J-Franks

Fair enough. It sounds a bit like string theory where all the basic particles are extremely small (far smaller than the particles as seen by us) strings of vibrating energy. I too noted in my book that matter is mostly empty space, but I also argued that there's no such thing as pure energy either, since most energy is due to the movement of something (kinetic energy) or a wound up force in waiting (potential energy). So I was only left with the option to reduce everything to forces and moving forces, rather than energy fields. Quantum field theory says different to both the above ideas. It treats particles as excited states of their underlying fields.

I don't think electric charge exists in its own right I think it needs a source or carrier. The field between two carriers of charge might cancel but the carriers won't disappear. When 'electric charge' in its basic form, an electron and a positron (antimatter), are brought together they do annihilate each other but there's a blast of energy in the form of photons left over. So the result is not completely 'nothing'. Also to create something from nothing you need to find 'nothing' to start with, which most likely doesn't exist. For me, the whole of that idea kills itself off as suggested by the use of the word catalyst.

For the time being, I think it's a rock-solid bet that 'matter-energy' can neither be created nor destroyed. (Incidentally, that also implies there was something before the big bang).

rod

Replies
7
Views
487
Replies
13
Views
830
Replies
0
Views
62
Replies
0
Views
79
Replies
13
Views
599