What happened before the Big Bang?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apr 22, 2020
3
0
10
The Big Bounce theory was once thought impossible. But two physicists have just resurrected it.

What happened before the Big Bang? : Read more
What could be worse than the second coming of the big bang? The theory will be endlessly resurrected, like an episode of the Twilight Zone, as long as there's an overpowering psychological need to validate the Genesis story and prove that the universe was created. To its adherents, the big bang theory proves the existence of God. But the evidence shows that the observable universe is in a steady-state and is not expanding.

The first problem is that the red shifts of galaxies, measured by Hubble, and more recently of supernovas, are all isotropic. This would only be consistent with the big bang theory if the big bang occurred at the position of the observer. Otherwise, one could determine the location of the starting point of the big bang from the relative motion of the galaxies. Galaxies on the opposite side would be moving away from us, while galaxies on the same side would be moving in the same direction as us. It has never been possible to determine the location of "ground zero," though, because the observed red shifts are isotropic. It doesn't make sense that they could be caused by the Doppler effect. Whatever is causing them, they tend to disprove, not prove, the big bang theory. Only recently have creationists stopped claiming that the red shifts are caused by the Doppler effect. This was the main evidence cited by them, until the red shifts were shown to be isotropic.

Now, they argue an abstraction of the big bang theory, that "space itself" is expanding uniformly like the surface of a balloon. There was, in fact, no great explosion, or ground zero where the big bang occurred. This abstract version was disproven by the Michaelson-Morley experiment, and is the same as arguing the medieval concept of the aether. "Space itself" cannot expand, because there is nothing there to expand. Electromagnetic waves don't interact with empty space, which doesn't act as a medium for light the way water does for ocean waves. The Michaelson-Morley experiment was one of the most important in the history of physics, and can't be ignored. It has been repeated and validated all across the EM spectrum.

Moreover, Einstein's theory of special relativity means that the frame of reference is relative between the observer and observed. It would be hard to reconcile with the concept of an aether; ie., an "expanding universe" or universal frame of reference. This is a hidden flaw in any theory of an expanding universe, which implies a universal frame of reference that exists independently of the observer. To say nothing of how odd it is to choose a frame of reference that is changing over time. According to relativity, no frame of reference is preferred over any other.

The other data used to argue the big bang theory, the presence of a nearly isotropic background of microwave radiation, suffers from the same problem. One wonders why the microwaves aren't all heading away from ground zero, the starting point for the big bang. Our own galaxy is racing away from ground zero at lightspeed - isn't this the basic idea of the big bang theory? The fact that the CMB is more or less isotropic tends to disprove that it originated in a big bang, just as the red shift data does.

There is also something called the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem. (CERN) In the laboratory, matter and antimatter particles are always produced in pairs. If they come into contact, they annihilate each other, leaving only energy. The observed universe is made almost entirely of matter. If all matter was created from energy in a big bang, by what mechanism was it created, that did not result in the creation of an equal amount of antimatter? There is no explanation, and no known mechanism.

That's because the big bang theory is a creationist myth. It has already been disproven a dozen different ways. Yet nothing will convince the zealots whose religious beliefs are always in need of support.
 
Apr 26, 2020
1
2
10
Watch the, now edited, "colorful" language, please. Thank you.
What could be worse than the second coming of the big bang? The theory will be endlessly resurrected, like ...<many words removed>
So, in short, no one has a clue...ok then,


“Sentience Orders,
Nothing else does,
Therefore the Universe
Is Ordered By
An Agency of Mind;
The Secret to the Universe
Is not a Secret -
And We are Legion."
-Stanza I, The Next Testament.

Origin studies are a mugs game, its all about the order.
 
Last edited:
Jan 30, 2020
5
1
15
The Big Bounce theory was once thought impossible. But two physicists have just resurrected it.

What happened before the Big Bang? : Read more
i am an ordinary person without high science twisted mind.....and to me the universe is endless and eternal--no beginning,no end....it s in human mortal nature to seek for the beginning and end and also a human nature is not comprehending the nature of eternity,endlessness,infinity....but i have always pondered abut impossible....and have understood the infinity of reality---and at the cost of my mental health--i am considered now a schizophrenic--and i am under pressure for what i have understood and experienced....
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,605
1,080
5,560
The space.com reports does point out near the end:

"In other words, the complicated (and, admittedly, poorly understood) physics of this critical epoch may indeed allow for a radically revised view of our time and place in the cosmos. But to fully test this model, we'll have to wait for a new generation of cosmology experiments, so let's wait to break out the ekpyrotic champagne."

Here are some thoughts from Alan Guth in 2014 on the early BB modeling events. "We agree with Ijjas, Steinhardt, and Loeb [12] that important questions remain. A well-tested theory of physics at the Planck scale remains elusive, as does a full understanding of the primordial singularity and of the conditions that preceded the final phase of inflation within our observable universe.", nflationary paradigm after Planck 2013
 
Apr 26, 2020
2
0
10
I'd heard that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing (dark energy). So that must reverse for the big bounce to happen. There must come a time when the dark energy starts to disappear out of our universe and the expansion rate must slow to a level such that the expansion will reverse and collapse will happen. Have I got that right?
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,605
1,080
5,560
FYI. In July 1948, QM and GR resulted in a totally different equation of state to explain the expanding universe compared to the inflation/multiverse models of today.

“Nineteen years after Edwin Hubble’s discovery that the galaxies seem to be running away from one another at fabulously high speeds, the picture presented by the expanding universe theory—which assumes that in its original state all matter was squeezed together in one solid mass of extremely high density and temperature—gives us the right conditions for building up all the known elements in the periodic system. According to calculations, the formation of elements must have started five minutes after the maximum compression of the universe. It was fully accomplished, in all essentials, about 10 minutes later.” —Scientific American, July 1948

It is good to remember the history of cosmology and answers shown over the years to explain our origins :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torbjorn Larsson
Apr 26, 2020
1
3
15
Being a person of common sense rather than mathematics, I always thought; where does all that "everything" go when it enters a black hole?
My thoughts are that it returns via string theory to another single point and when everything has left this "universe" the big bang repeats itself again in another plain. Thus another big bang repeats its self. My common sense of string theory.
 
Apr 26, 2020
1
0
10
What could be worse than the second coming of the big bang? The theory will be endlessly resurrected, like an episode of the Twilight Zone, as long as there's an overpowering psychological need to validate the Genesis story and prove that the universe was created. To its adherents, the big bang theory proves the existence of God. But the evidence shows that the observable universe is in a steady-state and is not expanding.

The first problem is that the red shifts of galaxies, measured by Hubble, and more recently of supernovas, are all isotropic. This would only be consistent with the big bang theory if the big bang occurred at the position of the observer. Otherwise, one could determine the location of the starting point of the big bang from the relative motion of the galaxies. Galaxies on the opposite side would be moving away from us, while galaxies on the same side would be moving in the same direction as us. It has never been possible to determine the location of "ground zero," though, because the observed red shifts are isotropic. It doesn't make sense that they could be caused by the Doppler effect. Whatever is causing them, they tend to disprove, not prove, the big bang theory. Only recently have creationists stopped claiming that the red shifts are caused by the Doppler effect. This was the main evidence cited by them, until the red shifts were shown to be isotropic.

Now, they argue an abstraction of the big bang theory, that "space itself" is expanding uniformly like the surface of a balloon. There was, in fact, no great explosion, or ground zero where the big bang occurred. This abstract version was disproven by the Michaelson-Morley experiment, and is the same as arguing the medieval concept of the aether. "Space itself" cannot expand, because there is nothing there to expand. Electromagnetic waves don't interact with empty space, which doesn't act as a medium for light the way water does for ocean waves. The Michaelson-Morley experiment was one of the most important in the history of physics, and can't be ignored. It has been repeated and validated all across the EM spectrum.

Moreover, Einstein's theory of special relativity means that the frame of reference is relative between the observer and observed. It would be hard to reconcile with the concept of an aether; ie., an "expanding universe" or universal frame of reference. This is a hidden flaw in any theory of an expanding universe, which implies a universal frame of reference that exists independently of the observer. To say nothing of how odd it is to choose a frame of reference that is changing over time. According to relativity, no frame of reference is preferred over any other.

The other data used to argue the big bang theory, the presence of a nearly isotropic background of microwave radiation, suffers from the same problem. One wonders why the microwaves aren't all heading away from ground zero, the starting point for the big bang. Our own galaxy is racing away from ground zero at lightspeed - isn't this the basic idea of the big bang theory? The fact that the CMB is more or less isotropic tends to disprove that it originated in a big bang, just as the red shift data does.

There is also something called the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem. (CERN) In the laboratory, matter and antimatter particles are always produced in pairs. If they come into contact, they annihilate each other, leaving only energy. The observed universe is made almost entirely of matter. If all matter was created from energy in a big bang, by what mechanism was it created, that did not result in the creation of an equal amount of antimatter? There is no explanation, and no known mechanism.

That's because the big bang theory is a creationist myth. It has already been disproven a dozen different ways. Yet nothing will convince the zealots whose religious beliefs are always in need of support.
I have a passing amateur interest in cosmology but what I've read (in Deep Space by G Schilling 2014) confirms above comments. The universe was not a tiny point at the "big bang" the universe was probably infinite then as it probably is now, it was just very densely packed together.

(Again as an amateur:) if the universe goes on forever in space it is not hard to imagine it also goes on infinitely in time and the big-bang was not the beginning at all, there was no beginning.
 
Dec 11, 2019
533
198
560
Being a person of common sense rather than mathematics, I always thought; where does all that "everything" go when it enters a black hole?
My thoughts are that it returns via string theory to another single point and when everything has left this "universe" the big bang repeats itself again in another plain. Thus another big bang repeats its self. My common sense of string theory.
Precisely! I totally agree! :)
 
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
Since Sutter is hedging with the need to test, I assume the claimed "resurrection" is a bit of a jest. The current inflationary big bang universe puts an indefinite period of cold inflation before the hot big bang, at energies that are orders of magnitude less than a presumed breakdown in general relativity. One can arguably speculate in the topology of a universe with a flat space since relativistic locally flat Minkowski space is silent on that - though flat space is the unconstrained, likely topology - but that would be no worse than "bounce" speculations.

Two specific problems with a string bounce speculation would be string respectively bounce. String theory has natural scale - right above standard model of particles energy ranges - predictions of WIMPs and axions/axion like particles as well as natural scale electron asymmetries that hasn't shown up. Bounce theory (in general, but an advance on that would surely be remarked on) do not give the right entropy, it is ever increasing instead of initially zero.

The context of the article asking for explaining "a singularity" is a bit dated as per above. Seems it is 40 years or so out of date:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Q8tS-9hYo
 
Apr 27, 2020
8
4
515
Well, is our current situation the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? I don't mean to be flippant but I think it is a serious question as to what is going on with our universe.
Since space and everything in it appears to be expanding in all directions, it would seem to be closer to the "end of the beginning" as you put it.
 
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
What could be worse than the second coming of the big bang? The theory will be endlessly resurrected, like an episode of the Twilight Zone, as long as there's an overpowering psychological need to validate the Genesis story and prove that the universe was created. To its adherents, the big bang theory proves the existence of God. But the evidence shows that the observable universe is in a steady-state and is not expanding.

The first problem is that the red shifts of galaxies, measured by Hubble, and more recently of supernovas, are all isotropic. This would only be consistent with the big bang theory if the big bang occurred at the position of the observer. Otherwise, one could determine the location of the starting point of the big bang from the relative motion of the galaxies. Galaxies on the opposite side would be moving away from us, while galaxies on the same side would be moving in the same direction as us. It has never been possible to determine the location of "ground zero," though, because the observed red shifts are isotropic. It doesn't make sense that they could be caused by the Doppler effect. Whatever is causing them, they tend to disprove, not prove, the big bang theory. Only recently have creationists stopped claiming that the red shifts are caused by the Doppler effect. This was the main evidence cited by them, until the red shifts were shown to be isotropic.

Now, they argue an abstraction of the big bang theory, that "space itself" is expanding uniformly like the surface of a balloon. There was, in fact, no great explosion, or ground zero where the big bang occurred. This abstract version was disproven by the Michaelson-Morley experiment, and is the same as arguing the medieval concept of the aether. "Space itself" cannot expand, because there is nothing there to expand. Electromagnetic waves don't interact with empty space, which doesn't act as a medium for light the way water does for ocean waves. The Michaelson-Morley experiment was one of the most important in the history of physics, and can't be ignored. It has been repeated and validated all across the EM spectrum.

Moreover, Einstein's theory of special relativity means that the frame of reference is relative between the observer and observed. It would be hard to reconcile with the concept of an aether; ie., an "expanding universe" or universal frame of reference. This is a hidden flaw in any theory of an expanding universe, which implies a universal frame of reference that exists independently of the observer. To say nothing of how odd it is to choose a frame of reference that is changing over time. According to relativity, no frame of reference is preferred over any other.

The other data used to argue the big bang theory, the presence of a nearly isotropic background of microwave radiation, suffers from the same problem. One wonders why the microwaves aren't all heading away from ground zero, the starting point for the big bang. Our own galaxy is racing away from ground zero at lightspeed - isn't this the basic idea of the big bang theory? The fact that the CMB is more or less isotropic tends to disprove that it originated in a big bang, just as the red shift data does.

There is also something called the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem. (CERN) In the laboratory, matter and antimatter particles are always produced in pairs. If they come into contact, they annihilate each other, leaving only energy. The observed universe is made almost entirely of matter. If all matter was created from energy in a big bang, by what mechanism was it created, that did not result in the creation of an equal amount of antimatter? There is no explanation, and no known mechanism.

That's because the big bang theory is a creationist myth. It has already been disproven a dozen different ways. Yet nothing will convince the zealots whose religious beliefs are always in need of support.
You posted a very similar, long, erroneous screed as a response to the same article on Livescience.

But you never responded when it was pointed out that you strawman science as "creationism" which is the very theology you refer to, as well as that the universe expansion is not 'an explosion' [see the video I linked to in my first comment here]. Inflationary big bang is the accepted theory of the universe, and it has passed all tests (contrary to your erroneous description, which lack references), and inflation is the mechanism that starts big bang [see the video].

So I guess you are - ironically and deluded - arguing from a basis of belief.
 
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
So, in short, no one has a clue...ok then,


“Sentience Orders,
Nothing else does,
Therefore the Universe
Is Ordered By
An Agency of Mind;
The Secret to the Universe
Is not a Secret -
And We are Legion."
-Stanza I, The Next Testament.

Origin studies are a mugs game, its all about the order.
It is about the science, as the article show.
 
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
The space.com reports does point out near the end:

"In other words, the complicated (and, admittedly, poorly understood) physics of this critical epoch may indeed allow for a radically revised view of our time and place in the cosmos. But to fully test this model, we'll have to wait for a new generation of cosmology experiments, so let's wait to break out the ekpyrotic champagne."

Here are some thoughts from Alan Guth in 2014 on the early BB modeling events. "We agree with Ijjas, Steinhardt, and Loeb [12] that important questions remain. A well-tested theory of physics at the Planck scale remains elusive, as does a full understanding of the primordial singularity and of the conditions that preceded the final phase of inflation within our observable universe.", nflationary paradigm after Planck 2013
Yes, but the Planck observatory collaboration improved on and tested the current inflationary big bang theory until 2018. In their very last data integration they could remove enough dust noise and show - with some other new radio observatory data - that inflation behaves like a simple 1D scalar field. Meanwhile LHC showed 2012-2107 that exactly such a field (albeit a more complex SU2 doublet field) predicted the standard particle couplings. One other find was that Planck scale physics is irrelevant in the new cosmology.

So Guth's and/or singularity's as well as the fringe bounce adherents' analyses are all somewhat dated.
 
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
Being a person of common sense rather than mathematics, I always thought; where does all that "everything" go when it enters a black hole?
My thoughts are that it returns via string theory to another single point and when everything has left this "universe" the big bang repeats itself again in another plain. Thus another big bang repeats its self. My common sense of string theory.
Mind that neither common sense nor mathematics alone will get you far in science. "Common sense" is meter scale, everyday physics, which is a scant part, and we need observation and testing in combination with math and stat quantification to get a grip on things.

So called "white hole" (black hole reversal) physics did not work out. And mind that the universe can never be a black or white hole, since they have outsides and the universe by definition (and by general relativity models) has none.

String theory is also teetering on the cliff edge I think, see my initial comment here why. I doubt black hole physics will differ from the current cosmology in avoiding unphysical 'singularities' and Planck scales, there are now many models that describe at least some of the innards (dust shell models, mass inflation, now recently dark energy, ...). Maybe that is why string theory seems to crap out, it isn't needed, all we seem to need is renormalizable quantum field theory of essentially a century of development. (In renormalization it seems - I think, I haven't studied it yet - what you get depends on what scale you look at. There is no single, fundamental theory if that scheme - which seem to rule now - is correct [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization , http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Quantum_gravity_as_a_low_energy_effective_field_theory ].)
 
Last edited:
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
Well, is our current situation the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? I don't mean to be flippant but I think it is a serious question as to what is going on with our universe.
Since space and everything in it appears to be expanding in all directions, it would seem to be closer to the "end of the beginning" as you put it.
Perhaps the video I posted in my first comment is helpful here? It describes the current setting (apart from the multiverse consequences of the slow roll inflation we seem to see [see Planck Legacy Archive 2018 cosmological parameters paper]).

If you want to dig into inflationary physics, there is more here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJCX2NlhdTc

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsLw2siRW0


[And if you want my opinion, we have to mind that our local universe is just that in slow roll inflation, since there will likely be an infinite number of them, see the videos above. It is more likely than models putting a constraint, and we wouldn't even know where such a constraint would come from. If that is the case, the universe was, is and will always be inflating.

A subset of zero measure in volume (using measure theory of math) are local universes - some 1/10^120 of which are habitable - will always have dropped out of inflation and are heading to heat death (*and* will always expand). So "our" situation is either neither with end or beginning - global scale - or at the beginning of structure formation but eventually will be nearing the heat death "end" (which isn't an end to expansion) - local scale.]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vznry
Perhaps the video I posted in my first comment is helpful here? It describes the current setting (apart from the multiverse consequences of the slow roll inflation we seem to see [see Planck Legacy Archive 2018 cosmological parameters paper]).

If you want to dig into inflationary physics, there is more here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJCX2NlhdTc

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsLw2siRW0


[And if you want my opinion, we have to mind that our local universe is just that in slow roll inflation, since there will likely be an infinite number of them, see the videos above. It is more likely than models putting a constraint, and we wouldn't even know where such a constraint would come from. If that is the case, the universe was, is and will always be inflating.

A subset of zero measure in volume (using measure theory of math) are local universes - some 1/10^120 of which are habitable - will always have dropped out of inflation and are heading to heat death (*and* will always expand). So "our" situation is either neither with end or beginning - global scale - or at the beginning of structure formation but eventually will be nearing the heat death "end" (which isn't an end to expansion) - local scale.]
Since we're talking about expansion here, I asked you a question in the thread of the same name and article topic on Live science website. No one answered my question. So, I thought I would ask the same question here. In that post, Torbjorn Larsson said:

"On to particulars, that may be unknown to some: It is a misunderstanding to think of "big bang" as an explosion, it is simply the expansion in *every* volume that general relativity permit and which we see (from redshift, say). Let me repeat the observed facts: big bang is not an explosion, and the expansion is precisely as expected from a general relativistic universe"

My question to him was:

"Space is a 'something' it's not a void. Its been called aether, quantum foam, quantum fields, vacuum energy, space-time fabric, dark energy etc. I'm not sure which is correct. Gravity can distort it. It's almost substance like. Even the video called it a ball of space (and energy). So why can't the big bang bang be called an explosion of 'space'?

The accepted view is that galaxies are not moving through space, it's that the space between galaxies is expanding.

If I make a ball of explosive and pack it with ball bearings, and detonate it, the ball bearings can be analogous to galaxies and the hot exploding gas analogous to expanding space. I can equally say here, that the ball bearings are not moving through the hot gas, but instead, it's the hot gas between the ball bearings expanding.

Also, galaxies are not held in place by space, because some have a blue shift and are coming towards us. The same in the bomb, the ball bearings are not held in place by the hot gas.

(Just in case you missed it, I also asked your opinion about that same ball of space in the video a bit higher up in this thread)

My question to you, please, is what is the difference between an explosion and an expansion?"

All in the brackets only applies to the live science post, but the video is repeated above here in post 13.

Answers anyone, please:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
While I'm at it, I asked the following question on the same thread:

"I watched the video. I didn't like his idea that the beginning was a small ball of 'space' and 'energy'. There are 2 sorts of energy, kinetic and potential. Since it's assumed no matter had formed by then, that just leaves potential energy. Potential energy can be in something like a spring. Energy is not a tangible substance there's no such thing as pure energy IMO. If there's no matter in this original ball, could it be just force fields or quantum fields etc? So, in your opinion, would it be more accurate to say this ball contained highly compressed fields of some sort rather than just calling it 'energy'. On the other hand, if some unknown much smaller fundamental particles made up this ball, then the energy could be stored as kinetic energy if they were moving about rapidly, like in a hot object. Surely it has to be one or the other or a combination - rather than just saying 'energy', which I don't think exists on its own. As for the 'space' part of the filling, that's just quantum fields and foam anyway isn't it? So, in summary, was it just a ball of highly compressed force fields?"

The video referred to is again the same one as in post 13 above. All comments welcome, please :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Apr 27, 2020
1
0
10
My question is not only what might have happened before the big bang, but whether there was a ball of matter, force or quantum, or anything else, which might have been part of the big bang, how did it exist in the first place? So, the question is where did whatever it is come from that went bang?
 
Apr 27, 2020
1
0
10
We all know that the Big Bounce theory is correct. It was carefully and thoroughly documented in "Restaurant at the End of the Universe." Just ask Marvin.
 
Dec 1, 2019
5
5
15
You get more bounce to the ounce. What happened before it happened? There are a lot of theories about space, time and matter. Like days of old when we believed that we were the center of the universe; we still think of ourselves as the center of all that exists. When we believed that if you went to the edge of flat Earth; you would fall into the depths of oblivion and get eaten by the creatures of the Hell. Was there life before the big bang, or did, as the creationists believe, all life began with one ejaculation. Question? Is time finite ; or is time immortal? Is space finite; or is space infinite. Is [this] universe an island on to itself; or are we a speck in the cosmic ocean of unrelated universes? I know we once looked into the reflective pool and fell in love with ourselves, but we do need to get over ourselves. How did we begin? Galaxies grow by merging with other galaxies,. Did this universe begin with the merging of smaller universes? Are there clusters of universes like that of Galactic Clusters? We are not alone in the cosmos; in more ways than one. There is a lot of problems with the Big Bang Do multiverses exist? How many angles can you put on a head of a pin? The Bounce Back theory is shot full of holes; unless you play basketball. Double dribble. When will we embrace the infinite. We are a thread of life in the fabric of time; we are not life personified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts