What happened before the Big Bang?

[egribble]

Hard to imagine as our brain was designed to contemplate survival on the two dimensional plains of Africa but my question is, Why does there have to be a time before the big bang? My understanding is that time and space began with the big bang. Time is the steady movement to increased entropy at the sub atomic level. We cannot imagine a place without time but there is no need to justify a time before the big bang. Likewise what we call space may have begun with the big bang, hard to contemplate.

 

[Bonzadog]

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....

What on earth is a "high science twisted mind" ???????

 

[foxpup]

Q:What happened before the big bang?
A:Exactly what happened before "Once Upon a Time..."
It's unimportant to the story line and conesquently undefined and formless which is no problem unless one has the unreasonable derangement of demanding that everything must have total form, which it doesn't. Just ask Heisenberg.
Form starts getting injected into the universe and causation starts happening while further form guides the process along....and here we are.
...kind of a strange and disturbing book the Author is writing, but I'm sure it will end well or at least have a whole lot of amazing moments.

 

[Bonzadog]

We simply do not know what happened before the Bang....any idea what happened is pure speculation.
It is totally out of our reference frame.

 

[Adrian Challinor FRAS]

Anyone wanting to know more, I recommend a reading or Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclical Cosmology. It starts easy, but by the time you get to the end your head will spin. Penrose fails on two counts: a) He had to invent a whole new branch of Maths to explain this (2-spinner calculus - yes, you may ask what?) and b) he claims to have found proof. Penrose was roundly condemned by the astrophysics because of this, unfairly in my view, as he has some valid arguments.

It needs a lot of further investigation, but its good to see Brandenberger and Wang look in to this. I have printed their paper for reading during lockdown. And then I will re-read Pensose.

This is one for my Astro-society to discuss on pub evenings - except those are now banned!

 

[Truthseeker007]

Well if this is a simulated virtual hologram then this universe had to be created by something for us to experience this reality that we think is real.

The theory that reality, as we consciously experience it, is not real, goes back to the indigenous people who believed that we exist in a dream or illusion. In our current timeline, we refer to the our virtual reality experience as a matrix, grids, simulation and hologram. There are those trying to prove the simulation exists and others who are trying to break us out of it.

So what happened before the big bang? My best hypothesis would be another simulation was going on then consciousness decided to make this simulation along with an infinite number of other simulations and or universes.

 

[rod]

FYI all. The space.com report is about a version of string theory that explains the origin of the universe, and likely the origin of everything I would guess. As space.com reported, "One of the earliest string theory notions is the "ekpyrotic" universe, which comes from the Greek word for "conflagration," or fire. In this scenario, what we know as the Big Bang was sparked by something else happening before it — the Big Bang was not a beginning, but one part of a larger process."

Here are some notes I accumulated in my home database as these wonders of modern cosmology keep unfolding and being reported, especially about string theory models.

[My observation, The report disclosed some critical information about the axion. "What makes this hard is that we're not exactly sure how these extra dimensions curl up on themselves, and there's somewhere around 10^200 possible ways to do it. But what these dimensional arrangements appear to have in common is the existence of axions, which, in string theory, are particles that wind themselves around some of the curled-up dimensions and get stuck. What's more, string theory doesn't predict just one axion but potentially hundreds of different kinds, at a variety of masses, including the axion that might appear in the theoretical predictions of the strong nuclear force...", ref - https://forums.space.com/threads/th...-a-cobweb-network-of-invisible-strings.28957/]

["...And as for string theory, it mostly faded into the background. It would be revived in the 1970s, once theorists realized that it could describe more than the strong force and after they found a way to get rid of the tachyon predictions in the theory. The theory still needed extra dimensions, but physicists were able to reduce the number to a more reasonable-sounding 10. And with the realization that those dimensions could be tiny and curled up below the scale at which we could directly observe it, string theory didn't seem to wacky after all...", ref - https://forums.space.com/threads/wh...despite-the-knotty-physics.29062/#post-510573]

["The math of string theory leads to a *multiverse*. I have other reports in cosmology that shows the multiverse contains 1E+500 or more different universes and now I see 1E+200,000 Calabi-Yao manifolds in the report.", ref - https://forums.space.com/threads/how-the-universe-could-possibly-have-more-dimensions.29597/]

I keep reports like this too from the past on the original density of the universe that started the expansion:

[“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, ref - https://www.scientificamerican.com/...elements-in-the-periodic-table-in-10-minutes/]

Is everyone keeping up with all the equation of state and new physics changes taking place to explain the origin of everything? ---Rod

 

[David-J-Franks]

Hard to imagine as our brain was designed to contemplate survival on the two dimensional plains of Africa but my question is, Why does there have to be a time before the big bang? My understanding is that time and space began with the big bang. Time is the steady movement to increased entropy at the sub atomic level. We cannot imagine a place without time but there is no need to justify a time before the big bang. Likewise what we call space may have begun with the big bang, hard to contemplate.

Why does there have to be a time before the big bang?

IMO - "There's no such thing as time there only motion", so for me, your question would mean more, if rephrased as "Why does there have to be motion before the big bang?"

My understanding is that time and space began with the big bang.

There's a rock-solid principle in physics - Matter/energy can not be created or destroyed. That means there has always been 'something', including before the big bang. To suggest the big bang is the beginning of everything would require 'something from nothing'.

I suggest that this 'something' has always been in motion. I don't think motion can arise from absolute stillness and vice versa. (If you watch one of the above videos, you will see that even the inflation field is in motion). So what form this eternal matter/energy and motion, changes from and to, is up to your imagination. I have my own firm opinions on this which I've posted in previous posts.

Time is the steady movement to increased entropy at the sub atomic level.

IMO I would rephrase that to - "motion is the steady movement to increased entropy at the sub atomic level".

Likewise what we call space may have begun with the big bang, hard to contemplate.

Space is not a void, it's not empty, it's a 'something', so it's not unreasonable to think it came out the big bang together with the rest of the shrapnel

 

[Lucille]

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.

I think that it is the beginning of the end of the age. Getting ready to go into another age or period of time.

 

[David Dundas]

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 always thought, right back to university days when astronomy was a minor fascinating subsidiary subject, that the universe was never created, and the famous big-bang is an event where energy condensed into matter. The point of that is, that it is energy that is what the universe is made of and matter is condensed out of it and at some point later, it is destroyed back to energy, possibly by a black hole.

 

[David-J-Franks]

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....

I too, like thinking about infinity, I agree with much of what you say. However, I don't think our universe is infinite because it had a starting size, a finite rate of expansion and a finite age so it must have only a finite size now. What I do think is infinite, is the space our universe is in, which in turn, is host to an infinite number of other universes. So in summary for me - 'infinite space, infinite universes, no beginning, no end'

We're not mad, everyone else is

 

[David-J-Franks]

<<Removed by moderator>>

As well as suggesting what there wasn't, can you suggest what there was or is?

 

[David-J-Franks]

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.

Matter/energy can't be created or destroyed, so no beginning or end, something has always existed, including before our big bang. All theories about universes must have a cyclic or recycling property to them. So, we are partway through the current cycle of a universe among, IMO, an infinite number other universes.

 

[David-J-Franks]

I have always thought, right back to university days when astronomy was a minor fascinating subsidiary subject, that the universe was never created, and the famous big-bang is an event where energy condensed into matter. The point of that is, that it is energy that is what the universe is made of and matter is condensed out of it and at some point later, it is destroyed back to energy, possibly by a black hole.

Exactly, matter is plunging into black holes as we speak, the beginning of an eternal recycling process.

 

[Catastrophe]

Exactly, matter is plunging into black holes as we speak, the beginning of an eternal recycling process.

and out the other side . . . . . . . . .

 

[David-J-Franks]

and out the other side . . . . . . . . .

Out the other side of what?

 

[egribble]

What on earth is a "high science twisted mind" ???????

It's OK, Science does not yet (and may never) have the answers anyway. Can only come up with hypotheses based on what is observable.

 

[Truthseeker007]

It's OK, Science does not yet (and may never) have the answers anyway. Can only come up with hypotheses based on what is observable.

I am wondering if remote viewing can go back as far right before this universe was created. I am sure they must have tried already. I know they have remote viewed Mars about a million years ago.

 

[egribble]

I am wondering if remote viewing can go back as far right before this universe was created. I am sure they must have tried already. I know they have remote viewed Mars about a million years ago.

If we look at something a billion light years away we ae looking at that object as it was a billion years ago. My understanding is that we can look back almost to the big bang (about 14 billion years ago). We cannot look back before then as light did not exist before then. This stuff is all very theoretical so who knows, everything may change as knowledge increases.

 

[Truthseeker007]

If we look at something a billion light years away we ae looking at that object as it was a billion years ago. My understanding is that we can look back almost to the big bang (about 14 billion years ago). We cannot look back before then as light did not exist before then. This stuff is all very theoretical so who knows, everything may change as knowledge increases.

That makes sense. And sure not much you can see with absolutely no light. So what happen before the big bang is a riddle we may never solve with scientific evidence. Although if the multi-verse theory is correct and there are other universes then this would not be the first or last universe created.

 

[Ted_planet_mad]

It's like asking, "Will our universe end, will it die, and what will come after? If the scientific community sees this way of thinking as something legitimate and demonstrable, it is not so good with us, haha. Somewhere years ago I've read something very interesting and it is the explanation that can definitely follow my logic. Just because everything in our languages must have a beginning and an end does not mean that we can or should apply our mother tongues to everything! It is a waste of energy to ask such a question at all for a simple reason. We know almost nothing about dark matter and dark energy than that there are such building blocks of the universe at all. The only thing we know about these protagonists of the universe is that both,the dark matter and the dark energy have no interest at the beginning and end, rather it is about the interaction of different intensities. There are no mathematical equations for this interaction. Do you know why? This math has the ability to demonstrate what is happening in time and space that is available to us. We can talk about everything, curiosity knows no limits, but it is no shame to accept that there are things that are not in the human realm. I think the religions have told us that we are in the realm of the gods. But we are not!

by Oleg Kunac

 

[Catastrophe]

" Just because everything in our languages must have a beginning and an end does not mean that we can or should apply our mother tongues to everything!"
It is anthropomorphism that I have to keep pointing out.

 

[Manuel Antolín]

Why is matter supposed to exist already at that beginning, and not just energy or whatever?

 

[IG2007]

Matter is proportional to energy, Manuel, try to remember e=mc-square. My thoughts about the beginning of the Universe is the same even after reading the article, because my thought was the same of the article. Hawking has said that blackholes also degenarate, they also "die". Maybe, this universe is just a part of an eternal cycle, or maybe there is everything out there. The thing is that we are inside something which might be everything or a part of everything.

 

[David Dundas]

Exactly, matter is plunging into black holes as we speak, the beginning of an eternal recycling process.

I think we all instinctively have a problem with accepting that time is our mental contsruct to measure the process of events for our own convenience. Einstein was (I think) the first to postulate that the speed of the passage of time depends on our relative speed through the universe. The point is that time goes on for ever and never started and will never end, and it only passes when we observe it. In the same way, the universe was never created or started; its a huge amount of energy that may be infinite in an infinite volume of the universe, and from time to time condenses into matter and then back again. Its naturally difficult for us to imagine anything that is infinite, except in the realm of maths.