Naked Science Forum

Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Joshua Brown on 09/05/2008 13:57:42

Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Joshua Brown on 09/05/2008 13:57:42
Joshua Brown asked the Naked Scientists:

Hello

I have a question I can't get my head around.

If the galaxy and all that exists was created by the big bang, then what created the big bang? Surely there was nothing in existence before the big bang took place, and nothing in existence for the big bang to take place in the first place, simply because nothing existed.

So how then did it take place if there was nothing before it? What was existence before the big bang?

What I'm getting at, basically, is how did something come from nothing? (maybe I don't understand the concept correctly?)


What do you think?
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 09/05/2008 14:18:32
I think its impossible to imagine absolute nothingness, but there's either gonna be something or nothing and here we are thinking about it
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 09/05/2008 16:31:31
One way to think about it is to say that before the BB there was a single value of a single type but at the BB this was split into many values of many types.

It's a bit abstract but all our notions and concepts of existance require a post-BB environment to be expressed.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: blakestyger on 12/05/2008 20:58:46
I think it's correct to say that the total energy of the universe is zero - so it would be zero before the Big Bang too.
So it's just zero in another form.
Next stop, Stockholm.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: JP on 12/05/2008 22:25:20
This is one of those questions that science can't answer.  Scientists can only really speculate on things they can test with experiments, and there's no way to test what was going on before the big bang.  Why?  As LeeE said, our concepts and tools require a post-BB universe.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: neilep on 12/05/2008 22:40:39
Before the Big Bang was a load of commercials !!...which then followed with the announcement " And now the main feature"
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: TheHerbaholic on 13/05/2008 07:26:13
Before the big bang there was stuff, matter or whatever... Why couldn't there have been "stuff" here forever and ever??? Something didn't HAVE to start everything. It could of just always been there...
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: lightarrow on 13/05/2008 07:50:05
 "What existed before the Big Bang?"

Time was created with th Big Bang, so "before" it is meaningless.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: TheHerbaholic on 13/05/2008 08:33:17
Time is something humans use to know the time of a moment. But before the big bang, in the vast of nothingness, their must of have still been moments, but with just nothing in them. Like if you have air but with no solid objects in them. Or just like space as it is with no air and pure nothingness, that space would have just been all around... Doesn't time still apply in space??? So why wouldn't it before the big bang if it was just space?
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: TheGOAT on 13/05/2008 11:03:21
Ok guys, iv registered, its me Josh Brown, the creator of this question. lol
If you say that before the big bang was just massive amounts of energy, or that time is meaningless before it (this doesnt answer my question, meaningless or not it was still in existence, energy, time whatever you want to call it, it still existed so it had to have come from somewhere, things dont just appear out of thin "air") or whatever your explanation is, explain to me how any of what your saying came into being in the first place, thats what im trying to get at.
The Big Bang or Big Splat as im lead to believe its called these days (or something there abouts) is just a reference to the very first instance "known", so im wondering how anything came into existence before that, if that was the very thing that created existence, or if this didnt create existence then how did whatever before that come into existence in order for the event which was the big bang to occur?
For example if you say that massive amounts of energy existed before, then how did those massive amounts of energy come into existence in order for this "singularity" to take place.
If you say that it was just a vast emptiness with no time or matter or anything, then how did that vast space come into existence in the first place?


Thanks
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: lightarrow on 13/05/2008 11:34:41
Time is something humans use to know the time of a moment. But before the big bang, in the vast of nothingness, their must of have still been moments, but with just nothing in them. Like if you have air but with no solid objects in them. Or just like space as it is with no air and pure nothingness, that space would have just been all around... Doesn't time still apply in space??? So why wouldn't it before the big bang if it was just space?

Big Bang created spacetime so you didn't have space nor time "before" it.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: lyner on 13/05/2008 11:38:01
Quote
meaningless or not it was still in existence, energy, time whatever you want to call it, it still existed so it had to have come from somewhere,
Not strictly true. If  you have a football and someone asked which part of the surface of the football contains the goalie's nose, you would say that the question has no meaning. The surface of the ball just consists of things on the surface. The goalie's nose is not part of the ball's surface. All that the surface consists of is s set of patches, sewn together and there is no 'edge'.
In a similar way, our Universe (our space / time) doesn't have to contain 'everything'.
The word 'before' implies a measurement IN our space/time and one boundary to our space/time is the big bang. Beyond the big bang can have a meaning all right but it can't necessarily be described in terms like 'where' and 'when' which we use for stuff  which is definitely in our space/time. When you say it must have 'existed' you  are using  the past tense implying time - implying it is 'inside' not 'outside' our space/time.
You are trying to insist that the goalies nose (and the whole stadium) must be part of the football's surface.
There are some things which cannot be discussed meaningfully using familiar ideas alone.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: lightarrow on 13/05/2008 11:39:31
Ok guys, iv registered, its me Josh Brown, the creator of this question. lol
If you say that before the big bang was just massive amounts of energy, or that time is meaningless before it (this doesnt answer my question, meaningless or not it was still in existence, energy, time whatever you want to call it, it still existed so it had to have come from somewhere, things dont just appear out of thin "air")

Can you prove it? If you have space you can have matter or none of it (void) but you have space. If time exist, you can have events or no events, but you still have time. You can't have any of that, if space and time don't exist.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: TheHerbaholic on 14/05/2008 12:39:19
Time is something humans use to know the time of a moment. But before the big bang, in the vast of nothingness, their must of have still been moments, but with just nothing in them. Like if you have air but with no solid objects in them. Or just like space as it is with no air and pure nothingness, that space would have just been all around... Doesn't time still apply in space??? So why wouldn't it before the big bang if it was just space?

Big Bang created spacetime so you didn't have space nor time "before" it.

Right so if the big bang created space time there was no space, and space is nothing, just big spaces or nothingness... so if before the big bang their wasnt nothing, then how would the big bang of created the universe if there was nothing? ie no space time.... because then when you ask the question what was before the big bang according to science you can't say nothing because thats what space is... but then what could you say was before the big bang if you can't say nothing?

So could it be because their are multiverses(or so some scientists believe), maybe another 2universe's created our universe by colliding together and thats what caused the explosion of the big bang?

Because then their could of actually been no space or time (nothing) before the big bang, if you think about how multiverses are, its like if you have a 2D image, you first have side to side, then up an down, they are both 2 types of universes, then when you make it a 3D image, you have alot more different types of universe.

But what I mean is that if before the image is 3D, if the collision happend of two 2D images, then it becomes a 3Dimage... how could you explain that 3Dimage looking at it from a 2D perspective?

If multiverses colliding did create our universe, then whats probabley the simple way to look at it, without all the complicated maths involved. Having a 3D Image, but trying to picture it in a 2D world. That's how the multiverses that collided to make ours could of been 2D but when they collided they became 3D.

That's what I think logically must have been before the big bang if nothing (no space) wasn't before it.. Different universes.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: shmengie on 14/05/2008 18:20:30
If multiverses colliding did create our universe, then whats probabley the simple way to look at it, without all the complicated maths involved. Having a 3D Image, but trying to picture it in a 2D world. That's how the multiverses that collided to make ours could of been 2D but when they collided they became 3D.

That's what I think logically must have been before the big bang if nothing (no space) wasn't before it.. Different universes.

I suspect gravity was the last dimension to collide with (or be added to) our universe.  B4 then, it was possibly a humongous lump of Bose-Einstein condensate.

The effects of gravity being introduced has produced stars, galaxies, etc. and everything else we observe, it almost certainly has to be the last ingredient.

I find in inconceivable that all rules governing the universe came together at once, though I don't discount the possibility, it seems improbable.  I speculate the last bang in the sequence of the "biggie" is gravity, otherwise, inflationary or an expanding universe would cause more filaments and/or some semblance of a center.

But then it's entirely possible that gravity existed first and something caused matter to spontaneously exist.  Given the rules of energy conservation, this seems unlikely.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: science_guy on 14/05/2008 19:21:00
Quote
If multiverses colliding did create our universe, then whats probabley the simple way to look at it, without all the complicated maths involved. Having a 3D Image, but trying to picture it in a 2D world. That's how the multiverses that collided to make ours could of been 2D but when they collided they became 3D.

That's what I think logically must have been before the big bang if nothing (no space) wasn't before it.. Different universes.

That point does nothing but expand the question a little farther back, how were the universes before it created? is it an infinite cycle with no beginning? is such a thing possible?
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: lyner on 14/05/2008 23:16:45
How can you guys still be talking in terms of 'before' and 'after'? Both words imply time and, if time is only in our Universe, there can be no time corresponding to 'not in or not during the time of existence of' our universe.
There is no real problem in considering alternative Universes but they need to be discussed in other (/ extra) terms than the ones with which we discuss this one.
Without a radical change of views you can't get anywhere useful in understanding these things. Just imagine trying to discuss cosmology with a determined 'flatlander'. It would not be possible.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: caboose17 on 16/05/2008 19:05:20
Einstein Believed in the theory of the constant universe, meaning that the universe has no beginning and no end, but this is disproved by the fact that everything in the universe is moving away from each other respectively at a constant rate. But science will never be able to prove or disprove the big bang theory. The theory is just that a theory. it is the best thing that scientists have at the moment.
       it is very hard for one to imagine a universe with no beginning and no end because in order for something to exist it needs to have had an origin. but this doesn't necessarily mean that it has to have and end.
The big bang is a hypothetical beginning that cannot ever be proven.
Some people say that by colliding protons together scientists can create a universe. if this is true then the big bang theory is disproved immediately and the question becomes how where the protons formed and how where they collided. Because protons are very hard to collide it takes a great amount of energy in order for them to touch and if there was nothing then how can there be force. and the greater question becomes what made the protons collide.
        This is the product of the feeble mind of a child.
       
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 17/05/2008 21:49:48
If two protons existed in nothing there would be nowhere where they could be separate from each other.  They would be in a state of collision as soon as they existed.

Actually, no particles existed at the earliest stages of the BB.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: lyner on 18/05/2008 00:34:18
Quote
Some people say that by colliding protons together scientists can create a universe. if this is true then the big bang theory is disproved immediately and the question becomes how where the protons formed and how where they collided. Because protons are very hard to collide it takes a great amount of energy in order for them to touch
Isn't this Nuclear Fusion? It's happening all the time - you can do it in a lab if you have enough money.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Mark Paquette on 18/05/2008 05:35:06
I think this is where science ends and religion is called on to step up.  It seems when science hasn't an answer, one is made up until a better explanation comes along.  Early native Americans, not knowing how thunder is created, would have staked their life that there is, in fact, a thundergod.  We now know this not to be true.

Carl Sagan had the view that as time goes by, each mystery is revealed by science, as advanced measuring methods are developed.

We humans have a hard time accepting things unless we can clearly see them.

It is as hard to imagine the period before the big bang as it is to imagine a four dimensional universe, one in which there would be four lines radiating at 90 degrees from the corner of a room, rather than the current three.  Look up at the corner of your room and try it.
Because we can't imagine or see it, does not rule out the possibility.

I, like many others I'm sure, would love to know the answer to this question.  It would have a profound impact on religion and science, as it is one of the few grand mysteries that stares us in the face everyday, but still remains unanswered.

So we spend time trying to visualize what was before the big bang, yet our minds are not capable of visualizing pure nothingness (if, in fact, that's how it was?).  It's like trying to consider eternity.  If you lie in bed sometimes and try for a while, you might, like I do, get a fleeting idea of the concept.  It startles me, then leaves.

I think the same will always be true when considering "what happened before the big bang?"

-Mark
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 18/05/2008 14:44:05
Science doesn't preclude religion - they perform fundamentally different purposes.  Science describes what happens in the universe but religion claims to give reasons for why things happen.

Every scientific theory and all scientific knowledge is really a description of what occurs in a given set of circumstances, so although a theory may say that an outcome 'A' happens because of reason 'Z', and appears to say why event 'A' occurs, it's really a description of the process whereby reason 'Z' results in event 'A'.  Religion, on the other hand, attempts to say why reason 'Z' occured in the first place.

However, I don't think that religion provides any answers.  The important thing about religion is faith, and faith precludes knowledge.  Faith is the belief in something without proof but as soon as proof is found you have knowledge, and so belief, and therefore faith become redundant.

People can and do turn to religion, but it's on the basis of ignorance and has no more validity in terms of knowledge than fantasy, where anything can happen for any reason.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Mark Paquette on 18/05/2008 17:55:35
I agree totally.  My point was that religion does provide answers for those who have faith.  For those lacking such faith (like myself), I don't consider them "answers".

My comment about religion "stepping up" is meant to show that when we don't have a "real" answer, religion will provide one.  If you don't have a religious faith, then you are left to ponder such questions as "how was something made from nothing"...Christianity, for example, provides the answer to its faithful:  "God created it all, so shutup already".  As a "scientist" (and boy, do I use that term loosely), I tend to look for the cause of the thunder, and not readily accept that "it's the thundergods, so shutup already".
I'm wondering if the thought of "absolutely nothing before the big bang" is as hard for me to fathom as it would have been for the Indians to fathom the thought of air molecules crashing together to create thunder.  They couldn't possibly imagine it, yet later, it was proven that in fact, this is thunder.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 19/05/2008 11:20:09
Yeah, it's interesting that when people generally reach the limit of knowledge they prefer to make up an answer based on whatever speculation occurs to them rather than accept that they just don't know, which is really a much more accurate, meaningful and useful answer.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: lyner on 19/05/2008 12:24:28
Quote
I'm wondering if the thought of "absolutely nothing before the big bang" is as hard for me to fathom as it would have been for the Indians to fathom the thought of air molecules crashing together to create thunder.  They couldn't possibly imagine it, yet later, it was proven that in fact, this is thunder.
The two things are not really comparable. The "Indians'  needed an explanation but hadn't the Science on which to base an explanation. A much better explanation than clouds bumping together is available using straightforward, step by step, mechanical reasons. Their question was about a concrete phenomenon which they could actually see and hear. The other idea is much more remote and less approachable.
The 'before the big bang' idea is not even a proper question (with respect to all the posters on this thread) but we can resolve the problem by using what 'we', as a Science / Philosophy community, already appreciate. The concept of 'before' implies TIME. If you are considering a region (not a time) in which the idea of time does not apply, then you can't use time - based words, such as 'before', with which to discuss it.
If someone told you to locate the END of a rubber band, you would appreciate that was a daft question. If they said "Where does the rubber band start?" you could not tell them an answer in terms of distance along the rubber band. We are all familiar enough, even, with rubber bands to actually ignore the difficulty involved.
Now, although we don't think of time as being an endless loop, we still can appreciate the possibility of time (future) as possibly having no limit - just going on and on with nothing 'beyond'**.  I think that even the statement "after the end of time" would seem a bit dodgy because the word 'after' would imply some more time left on the end.
SO, why is there a problem with just saying that there is /was no time 'before'  what we refer to as the beginning of time? If the BB represents some kind of boundary / start to time then 'before BB' doesn't need to have any more meaning than 'off the end of' a rubber band does.
You could say that there are places which are not actually on the rubber band (places in our familiar 3D space).
There are / could be regions that are not actually part of our 'time'. But, because we aren't  outside the model we are studying, it's a bit more of a mental leap to accept. We can't perceive the thing from a wider perspective as we can with a rubber band which we can actually see  and run our finger along .

But why not go along with this idea?
** Just one of the possible futures for the Universe, which could be open, closed or flat.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Mark Paquette on 20/05/2008 02:00:52
Quote
The two things are not really comparable. The "Indians' needed an explanation but hadn't the Science on which to base an explanation.

I still think the two are comparable in my reference to their being equally as perplexing to the observers, with no way to be absolutely sure of the circumstances in either case.  Neither party had/has the Science on which to base an explanation...I mean a real explanantion.
To say for sure there was nothing before (I know, but please excuse the temporal reference) the big bang  is as good as saying there was a big, white stuffed bunny there. Or maybe there was a physicist in a laboratory, with a newly built particle accelerator,  throwing the switch on the first ever attempt to create a small universe in the lab (came out a little bigger than he thought).
In the latter case, there for sure would have been a "before", with something there, too.  Kind of like the time before Jesus Christ...you have AD 2008 and you have 2008 BC.

Finally, forgive my ignorance if my statements/opinions are naive, but people I know in "real life" aren't even sure why it's cold in the Winter and hot in Summer, and this type of conversation is refreshing...been waiting a long time.

-Mark
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: science_guy on 20/05/2008 05:06:20
Quote
the big bang  is as good as saying there was a big, white stuffed bunny there. Or maybe there was a physicist in a laboratory, with a newly built particle accelerator,  throwing the switch on the first ever attempt to create a small universe in the lab (came out a little bigger than he thought).

I laughed when I read this. 

but What matters is not your naivete, but actually the insight you provide, and you've provided plenty of it.

despite my professed beliefs, I am always questioning, always yearning to know.  Astronomy kind of stops that quest cold. [:)]
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 20/05/2008 19:15:12
Heh - that reminded me of the lines "It's a small world but I wouldn't want to have to paint it" and "Who'd want everything? Where would you put it?" by Stephen Wright (see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Steven_Wright for more amusing one-liners)

Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: johnbrandy on 25/05/2008 02:44:19
The Big Bang is a 'theory', reputed to be the most acceptable explanation, among cosmologist, as to the origin of the known universe. Therefore the question, "what existed before the Big Bang", is hopelessly flawed. Please understand,I state this respectfully. In a different, but clearly relevant vein, Carlo Suares writes in his book, "The Cipher of Genesis", in regard to the biblical verse, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth", "The hypothesis of the existence of an unthinkable God previous to an unthinkable beginning forces the mind to confront the absurdity of a something-before-anything creating everything out of nothing". "A "beginning" of time and space is as unthinkable as is their non-beginning. Therefore a text that proclaims the hopelessly inconceivable leads at the very start into the fictitious domains of wrong thinking". Further he writes, "Thus-by means of such circuitous stratagems-does the psyche mesmerize the intellect so as to extort the justification it requires in order to avoid having to face the dreaded idea of an ever-present mystery". We are asking a question that utterly falls outside of our ability to know, understand, and more importantly, cognize. Yet, when viewed and seriously reflected upon in the above context, the question, "what existed before the Big Bang", can serve a useful purpose. It "forces" the mind to the realization that life necessitates an ever-present mystery. The mind is a wonderful and elegant tool, but it has inherent limitations, with respect to our very existence, and our place in the universe, and the related questions that arise. This fact seem obvious. I graciously offer this view for your consideration.         
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 25/05/2008 09:24:32
Time is something humans use to know the time of a moment. But before the big bang, in the vast of nothingness, their must of have still been moments, but with just nothing in them. Like if you have air but with no solid objects in them. Or just like space as it is with no air and pure nothingness, that space would have just been all around... Doesn't time still apply in space??? So why wouldn't it before the big bang if it was just space?

Big Bang created spacetime so you didn't have space nor time "before" it.

Right so if the big bang created space time there was no space, and space is nothing, just big spaces or nothingness... so if before the big bang their wasnt nothing, then how would the big bang of created the universe if there was nothing? ie no space time.... because then when you ask the question what was before the big bang according to science you can't say nothing because thats what space is... but then what could you say was before the big bang if you can't say nothing?


You seem to be confusing "space" with "nothing". They are not the same. "Nothing" is not the same as "empty". To be empty implies there is something with nothing in it. There is no space in nothing, and there is no nothing anywhere in space. If there were nothing in space, space would still be a something due to its very existence and therefore couldn't be nothing. "Nothing" is a lack of everything, including space.

I prefer to think of pre-Big Bang as null rather than nothing. To a computer programmer, null is an unknown value but, potentially, could be any value. As soon as it gets a value, it is not null. The Big Bang gave the null a value so it became something tangible.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: caboose17 on 26/05/2008 03:33:12
Quote
Some people say that by colliding protons together scientists can create a universe. if this is true then the big bang theory is disproved immediately and the question becomes how where the protons formed and how where they collided. Because protons are very hard to collide it takes a great amount of energy in order for them to touch
Isn't this Nuclear Fusion? It's happening all the time - you can do it in a lab if you have enough money.

protons never completely collide together. they have the same charge and so there for repel eachother. They would never collide under normal circumstances.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: caboose17 on 26/05/2008 03:36:20
If two protons existed in nothing there would be nowhere where they could be separate from each other.  They would be in a state of collision as soon as they existed.

Actually, no particles existed at the earliest stages of the BB.

what i said was just a theory based on facts. I know that there were no particles prior to the big bang but then how did we get something from nothingness. Can you imagine nothingness. let me tell you it is scary. Now how do you get SOMETHING from NOTHING? NOBODY can answer that question.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 26/05/2008 23:02:07
I am an expert on nothing.  Nothingness isn't scary - it's boring.

However, the fact that there was no space and no time prior to the BB doesn't mean that there was nothing.  I agree that the universe wasn't created out of nothing - if there was nothing, there would be nothing to create the universe out of:)

The problem is that what existed prior to the BB did so in a state that can't be described in terms of space and time.

A much simplified version of this question might be: how much water is there in that ice cube?

The answer is none, because it's ice.  (I did say it was a very simplified version [;D])
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Eddie on 06/09/2008 19:17:16
Why not try jumping out of physics and looking at what philosophy has to say because there will never be physical evidence of what existed before the big bang,the beginning of physics.
Kant, for instance looked at it this way.
"Time and space are not substantial things but a-priori attendances to the appearance of the extended world. The latter in effect is a mental model of the world that we have and can verify but only in a time and space context.
Because we cannot know the reality of the extended world absolutely we are at liberty to develop an argument in terms of our interpretation.
A debate whether the universe had a beginning in space and time and was finite could not be assertive, but in order for us to understand the world it needs to have a beginning and be finite.
As time and space were merely determined by appearance and had no proven absolute substantiality there is no reason why they cannot be regarded as assuming a state of nothing. Empty space and time outside of the known universe is thus justifiable."

In short we must postulate a state of nothing before the big bang in order to understand the evidence our instruments show us. Nevertheless, this could drastically alter as we progress our knowledge.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 07/09/2008 12:56:59
Is philosophy redundant in the face of knowledge?  That is, if something is known to be, is there any point in debating it's existance?  Philosophy does have a place in debating the unknown i.e. we don't know why the colour of this thing that we know to exist is the colour that it is, but once we know the answer it once again becomes redundant.  It seems then that philosophy is about the unknown and possible but not the known and actual.

Philosophy can therefore produce lines of inquiry, but then science is needed to investigate that line of inquiry to find out if it is true or false.

I must dispute the statement that "there will never be physical evidence of what existed before the big bang,the beginning of physics" - this just can't be proved.  It can even be argued that the fact of the existence of the universe is evidence that something did exist before the BB, unless you wish to believe that something can be created out of nothing (for which no possible logical mechanism exists).

I think that the statement "As time and space were merely determined by appearance and had no proven absolute substantiality there is no reason why they cannot be regarded as assuming a state of nothing" is also flawed:  Our thoughts, both yours and mine, have no substantiality but they certainly exist - these postings on the forum would never have happened without them.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Eddie on 07/09/2008 20:27:53
Hi Lee,
The opinion put forward in my post was Kant's and he lived in the eighteenth century.

Your comments are valid but do miss the point a bit. Philosophers would challenge the concept of knowledge and to be quite frank science doesn't have such a good record of holding absolute knowledge; I can cite Dalton's atomic structure, Newton's gravity and so on. Science is a progressive phenomenon which is based upon the admirable rule of revising the old in face of ever increasing discoveries and researches. The knowledge of today is a tenuous thing,  I think any scientist worth his salt would hold that constantly debating that which we contest we know to be is a vital part of human progress.

I think Kant had a valid point answering the initial post which was 'how can the universe have come to be from a state of nothing'. What he meant was as space and time are the way in which we guage the world in which we live (note quantom seriously challenges these concepts) then we are at liberty to consider them as having a beginning before which was relative nothing if it fits the current scientific 'knowledge'. However we cannot say this is the absolute reality and we wouldn't be true scientists if we thought so because our 'knowledge' would become dogmatic.

Philosophy has a vital role to play still in this regard as you rightly say but when do we stop and say we have absolute knowledge by way of our scientific quest. Philosophy, if you understand what it really is, will never be redundant in the face of knowledge.

I agree with you that 'something out of nothing is illogical, you are being philosophical here.....do you see what I'm getting at.

Eddie
 


Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 08/09/2008 00:03:56
The law of conservation of energy to gether with the law of the conservation of angular momentum seem to be just about the most solid and fundamental features of this universe.
Assuming that these laws are true it is perfectly obvious that the universe has always existed and always will altough it may change shape.  However defining what that shape is likely to be is far more difficult.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 09/09/2008 18:26:16
Many philosophers have indeed challenged the concept of knowledge but they all came out of the fray as the loser.

Challenging the concept of knowledge can be quickly reduced to: "I am challenging the concept of knowledge".  If that statement is true, I am in possession of knowledge (the knowledge of my action in challenging the concept of knowledge) and thereby prove that knowledge exists.  If the statement is untrue, I am not in fact challenging or questioning the concept of knowledge at all, and can draw no conclusions about it.

I don't disagree that scientists question and debate things that are considered to be knowledge, but unless there's a problem, something that's missing or doesn't add up within that knowledge, they'll be discussing the implications of that knowledge and where it leads, not the existing knowledge itself.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Eddie on 11/09/2008 13:17:03
"Challenging the concept of knowledge can be quickly reduced to: "I am challenging the concept of knowledge".  If that statement is true, I am in possession of knowledge (the knowledge of my action in challenging the concept of knowledge) and thereby prove that knowledge exists.  If the statement is untrue, I am not in fact challenging or questioning the concept of knowledge at all, and can draw no conclusions about it." (Lee E)

Oh dear.....a self contradiction argument, it's merely an exercise in language and not the point at all. Philosophy does not challenge the concept of 'knowledge' but the assumption that we have correct knowledge. In this example the subject has knowledge but it is the wrong knowledge; he is challenging his very act (having knowledge).

Kant was saying if we base our arguments upon the concepts of space and time and then say that space and time actually began at the point of the big bang then they could not exist prior to that starting point. Within the pre-selected parameters of space and time we can justifiably say there was nothing prior to them.

The implication is that we thus need to look outside of our space and time concepts to investigate the state before the big bang. This is something that has been forced upon us by quantom itself where space and time concepts prove inadequate to objectively describe nature.The 'nothing' before the big bang is relative to space and time not absolute.

So to return to the slight deviation into philosophy, we must question if we do in fact have the correct knowledge of the absolute reality in terms of space and time, or as Kant points out, are these concepts which are relative to our conscious knowledge only. 

Science, more than at any time before, must question unargued postulates.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 12/09/2008 15:46:29
Hmm...  well you did say:

Quote
Philosophers would challenge the concept of knowledge...

and not

Quote
the assumption of correct knowledge

and I can't regard my argument as being just one of language - it's an argument of logic and would mean the same in any language (where the concept of knowledge was the same)  [:)]

I think the problem with Kant's conclusion was that he failed to imagine that any other state of existance, other than the current one, was possible, and therefore didn't qualify what he meant by 'nothing'.  I think that most people are happy with the idea that everything that exists now, in the form we are familiar with, did not exist before the BB, but that doesn't mean that things that we are not familiar with, or which do not exist now, never existed.

I agree totally that

Quote
we thus need to look outside of our space and time concepts to investigate the state before the big bang

That's true by definition  [;D]
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Eddie on 12/09/2008 21:11:18
Lee,
It's 'language' as the method of 'deconstruction'(philosophical term..nothing to do with buildings and so on) which is a logic trying to display the inadequacy of language as a philosophical tool of communication and attempting to disprove a submission on those grounds only....Wittgenstein, Jacques Derrida and all that, and not a case of German, French and so on. I'm sorry I did not make that clear.
I thought, however that the rest of my post which started this debate made it clear I was not talking about Knowledge as an isolated concept.

I chose Kant to try and move the initial argument on a bit (See your post beginning with 'I'm an expert on nothing' which I entirely agreed with.)

Kant is generally regarded as a supporter of science. The publisher 'Everyman' comments on his work
"(Kant's) argument,if correct, shows traditional metaphysical claims to the knowledge of relaity which lie behind or beyond our sense experience are unfounded but at the same time it vindicates the reality of scientific knowledge."

I don't think he was trying to give an opinion about 'nothing' but warning that our knowledge based upon that which we can experience (in the full extent including scientific evidence and enquiry)may not be relied upon when considering things we cannot by definition experience. He applied his argument in his own time but it is not beyond possibility that the same thing applies today. It's not fair to say he failed to imagine any state of existence other than the current one because the main thrust of his thought was about 'noumena' the actual state of the existence of things in the extended world outside of our immediate conscious interpretation. It was the whole point of his claim that in terms of space and time we can say there was nothing.His 'noumena' idea has received a lot of criticism but it indicated he was definitely implying states of existence outside the current one. History shows he wasn't far out in view of quantom etc.


 
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 13/09/2008 16:04:43
Hi,

I interpreted your original post as arguing: Because we can not directly experience or observe what existed before the Big Bang, we might obtain knowledge via philosophy.  The argument I tried to make was:  Philosophy may produce directions of investigation but cannot, on it's own, result in knowledge.

I think that the issue I have with Kant's argument is that it seems redundant.  It's not incorrect, but logically unnecessary.  This might come down to context - when he made his argument, the concepts he was attempting to deal with were much more novel than they are now - what then seemed controversial is now widely accepted.

Whereas Kant seems to argue:

Quote
A debate whether the universe had a beginning in space and time and was finite could not be assertive, but in order for us to understand the world it needs to have a beginning and be finite.

I would argue that if Space and Time was created in the Big Bang, it could not have existed before it was created.

Kant might arrive at the same answer in the end but there's no proof, and therefore no knowledge.  However, as long as we accept causality, the fact that nothing exists before it is created must be accepted as true, and therefore knowledge.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Eddie on 13/09/2008 20:19:03
This is dead right Lee, in fact one of Kant's statements was

'the confirmation of an idea of reason by perceptive intuition (this includes experiment, observation etc) is a guide to the knowledge of reality'.

I considered what you were saying and what Kant inferred were about the same but from a different perspective.
Perhaps he is now redundant but for a eighteenth century guy he seemed very perceptive.

The problem now is, as we cannot 'experience' what state existed before the big bang. Presumably we have the recourse to make theories which will have consequences. It is the latter that we have the ability to 'experience' with the scientific method at our disposal.

There are quite a few theories bounded about....cyclic universe theory, quantom vacuum idea, actual creation ex-nihilo based on the supposition that gravity and inflation cancel to zero, the several dimensions theory, the many universes theory and so on. It is the consequences of each which will be likely to lead to the most viable conclusion and perhaps that will be as near to knowledge that we will ever be able to get.

The quest of particle physics towards Hawking's 'theory of everything' may be a curse in disguise in this respect for it will form the universe into a totality. Outside of a totality can only be one thing and that is nothing. In a way I hope CERN still discovers some more loose ends.

What do you think?


Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: rlsuth on 15/09/2008 16:50:06
Einstein Believed in the theory of the constant universe, meaning that the universe has no beginning and no end, but this is disproved by the fact that everything in the universe is moving away from each other respectively at a constant rate.


Einstein didn't believe that at all. Well, he did originally which is why he introduced his cosmological constant, but he moved away from that theory.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: rlsuth on 15/09/2008 16:50:59
Joshua Brown asked the Naked Scientists:
What was existence before the big bang?



It is possible that there was a collapsing universe before the big bang.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Democritus on 15/09/2008 17:26:24
Joshua asks "How did something come from nothing?"
That is the question. I'm afraid.
Democritus
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 15/09/2008 22:39:46
Hi Eddie,

I think we are still a long way from a comprehensive theory of everything.  Let's say the the LHC reveals the Higgs Boson and makes the QM Standard Model more complete - has this answered everything?  Well of course not, it'll just be confirming a theory of behaviour of the universe at a certain level.  It'll say what fundamental particles exist at that level, what their properties are and how they interact.  It won't explain the structure of those particles and why they have their properties, which is where the next round of theories, and proving them begins.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: socratus on 17/09/2008 08:41:57
Joshua Brown asked the Naked Scientists:

Hello

I have a question I can't get my head around.

If the galaxy and all that exists was created by the big bang, then what created the big bang? Surely there was nothing in existence before the big bang took place, and nothing in existence for the big bang to take place in the first place, simply because nothing existed.

So how then did it take place if there was nothing before it? What was existence before the big bang?

What I'm getting at, basically, is how did something come from nothing? (maybe I don't understand the concept correctly?)


What do you think?
======================
Before “ big bang “ was God.
And the God created the Universe and everything.
I now only two ways to explain this fact.
1)
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm,  we have named " a  singular point".
And action, when  the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".

The Catholic Church agrees with this idea.
Look:
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/
 
2)
At first God ( according to Quantum theory ) used the
Vacuum ( T= 0K ) to create “ virtual particles “ and
 they ( according SRT + QED and GRT ) created the
Universe and Everything in this Materialistic Universe.

Nobody agrees with this idea.

3)
Do you have another idea ?
==========..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf

=============================================

Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Eddie on 17/09/2008 19:22:42
Hi Lee,

Yes, validity for the Higgs field to unify electro-weak force will not be the end things.

(In fact the Higgs field was cited as the means to the 'from nothing we come and to nothing we will go' theories of the big bang in the late 80's.)

What are we to make of the theoretical non zero vacuum state expectation?

Problem to me is, at this stage, particle physics seems to be leading either to the creation ex-nihilo idea or the possibility infinite regression. Are we therefore looking to cyclic universes or other dimensions?

To answer Joshua Brown's post is hard because the illogical submission of something from nothing doesn't seem to have anything concrete to challenge it yet other than events which at the moment are regarded as acausal.

Regards,
Eddie
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 19/09/2008 17:06:19
Hi Eddie,

If we accept that the set of space-time dimensions that we are familiar with were created in the BB then it would seem that whatever existed before the BB did so somewhere else, which implies other dimensions.

I think that a dimensional super-set may offer the best explanation to the occurrence of the BB, and where everything came from, although such a dimensional super-set would have to be pre-existing, and then we'd start wondering about where that came from.

If we go along with this idea of a pre-existing dimensional super-set we could then postulate that an (unknown) event and mechanism within that super-set caused the isolation of the region forming our universe from the rest of the super-set.  It's difficult to imagine what such an event could be, especially from our point of view within our sub-set, but as this is an issue of hierarchy we might find a lower order example of this mechanism within our own universe.  For example, if we think of our four-dimensional space-time universe as being an isolated region of four-dimensional space-time within a five dimensional space-time universe, perhaps we should look for the formation of isolated three-dimensional regions of space-time within our four-dimensional universe.

One possible candidate for this phenomenon occurring in our universe could be the formation of Black Holes.  In the current model of Black Holes (from our four-dimensional space-time point of view) the rate of time becomes zero at the Schwarzchild radius/Event Horizon, effectively removing one of the dimensions and leaving an isolated three-dimensional region of space(/time?) within our four-dimensional space-time universe.  Now because no events can occur without a time dimension, which is required to allow the necessary before/after states that define the occurrence of an event, the implication would seem to be that if a new universe is created within a BH, and starts when the BH is formed, it'll only have two spatial dimensions but be spatially unbounded (not only in terms of it's shape but also because there's infinite two dimensional area within a three-dimensional volume).  At the same 'time' it's time dimension would be entirely new, 'current' time having been zeroed at the EH.  A pleasing aspect of this model is that we could hypothesize that the energy and matter we see falling into a BH results in the expansion of the three-dimensional universe within it, although such a universal expansion would have to be non-constant and varying over time, due to the varying stream of in-falling energy & matter from our universe.  Ultimately, such a universe is likely to evaporate due to Hawking radiation.

Now comes the disclaimer [;D]

This is not a theory

...unless it turns out that after sufficient observation, the expansion of our universe turns out to vary in such a way that would fit with the idea of five-dimensional energy & matter falling in to it, at which point I'll start claiming to be famous [;D]
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Eddie on 19/09/2008 21:35:04
Hi Lee,
I like the idea of 'other dimension, theories' hope you've secured a patent.

Do you know of the work of Bohmer ('o' with an umlaut) and his submission of the Nariai universe?
He uses 'loop quantom gravity' to try to remove the space-time singularity in a black hole.Inside the black hole matter would travel forever and this would be experienced as infinite even though inside a black hole of finite size. In short a universe within a black hole.

Implications of this indicate either the unstable Nariai will collapse or beome a deSitter universe which would also have blackholes. These in turn would be universes in their own right and so on.

Please accept my apologies if you know all this, bit if not, you can find details on
NewScientist.com.newsservice (October 2007)
it's where I got it from.

The idea is not quite the same as yours but you may find it interesting and I'd be interested in what you think....one problem is loop quantom gravity cannot introduce any kind of experiment which would predict phenomena the standard model also predicts , unlike yours.

Regards

Eddie




Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: socratus on 20/09/2008 06:37:03

(In fact the Higgs field was cited as the means to the 'from nothing we come and to nothing we will go' theories of the big bang in the late 80's.)

What are we to make of the theoretical non zero vacuum state expectation?

Problem to me is, at this stage, particle physics seems to be leading either to the creation ex-nihilo idea or the possibility infinite regression. Are we therefore looking to cyclic universes or other dimensions?

To answer Joshua Brown's post is hard because the illogical submission of something from nothing doesn't seem to have anything concrete to challenge it yet other than events which at the moment are regarded as acausal.

Regards,
Eddie
===========================================

What is infinity?
Abstraction or Reality?
Speculation or Fact ?
Does Infinity have any physical parameters?
==========
 To be or not to be? ,
that is the question.
/  Shakespeare /

Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Eddie on 20/09/2008 20:46:05
Hi Socratus,

In the context of Joshua's question we are talking here of theoretical infinity, a mathematical concept of never ending series. Theoretical physics has thrown up infinities all of the time in it's quest to formulate the unified force which it believes existed at the instant of the big bang. Scientists deal with what they term 'absurd infinities' by placing them on either sides of their equations thus cancelling them out.

If the big bang was not created from nothing then it must have been created from something. Then you have to ask what came before that and so on. If you wish to avoid finally settling on a stage which came from nothing you are forced into infinite causality.

This is the choice, nothing or infinity, your statements apply to both concepts.

"To be or not to be? That is the question.
To be and not to be, that is the answer."
/Marjorie Orr/ 
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 21/09/2008 01:42:17
Hi Eddie,

No, I hadn't heard of Bohmer's work - sounds interesting and thanks for pointing it out - I'll have to look it up and have a read sometime.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: socratus on 21/09/2008 11:01:48
Hi Socratus,

In the context of Joshua's question we are talking here of theoretical infinity, a mathematical concept of never ending series. Theoretical physics has thrown up infinities all of the time in it's quest to formulate the unified force which it believes existed at the instant of the big bang. Scientists deal with what they term 'absurd infinities' by placing them on either sides of their equations thus cancelling them out.

If the big bang was not created from nothing then it must have been created from something. Then you have to ask what came before that and so on. If you wish to avoid finally settling on a stage which came from nothing you are forced into infinite causality.

This is the choice, nothing or infinity, your statements apply to both concepts.

"To be or not to be? That is the question.
To be and not to be, that is the answer."
/Marjorie Orr/ 
========================
1.
Eddie;
we are talking here of theoretical infinity,
we are talking here of a mathematical concept …..of infinity,

S.
I say here about Real Infinity of Universe.

2.
Eddie;
Theoretical physics has thrown up infinities …………
…………..
Scientists deal with what they term 'absurd infinities'
by placing them on either sides of their equations
thus cancelling them out.

S.
Why ? ? ?
Because the concept of infinite/ eternal means nothing
to a scientists.  They do not understand how they could
draw any real, concrete conclusions from this characteristic.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not
be conformed
 to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
 has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
 and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
 « If we want that the theory would be correct,
 the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
 Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
 all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.

3.
Eddie;
If the big bang was not created from nothing then
 it must have been created from something.
 
S.
“ big bang” is speculative “theory”.

4.
Eddie;
Then you have to ask what came before that and so on.
 If you wish to avoid finally settling on a stage which came from nothing
 you are forced into infinite causality.

S.
You are right. ( if you don’t know that Infinity is)

5.
Eddie;
This is the choice, nothing or infinity, your statements apply to both concepts.

S.
The conception “ Nothingness is Infinity” is right.

6.

"To be or not to be? That is the question.
To be and not to be, that is the answer."
/Marjorie Orr/

Nice and  right quotation.
=====================..

P.S.

Does Infinity have any physical parameters?

I have many answers : “ NO ”.
But I think they are wrong.
I think the Infinity is Vacuum in the state of: T=0K.
!!!
=========================..

Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: thelastman on 21/09/2008 15:27:55
I think one day we will know what came before our universe and will have at our disposal, little baby-making universes.  I've grown to believe it's all a matter of dynamics and the quantitative changes occurring when those dynamics breech a critical point:  like water changing to ice when the critical point of freezing is reached:  the concept of swimming looses meaning when this occurs.  There is no swimming in ice: There are no (I believe) physics like ours on the other side of the Big Bang critical point.  If true, then our concepts of matter, space, time, and energy, cause and effect, beginning and ending,  may not be applicable to the state of the pre-existence.  Something qualitatively different which we have not yet created, must be used to describe it because of the critical point which separates our world form it.  
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Eddie on 22/09/2008 14:11:19
Hi Socratus,

Yes; scientists work in guages which are mostly balanced totalities. Yet history has taught that the boundaries of these totalities need to be continually extended. As you say, they cannot work with a concept like 'infinity'.

I think the reason is that science is primarily a process of thinking of an idea to explain how things are and then observing if that idea correctly describes what is in the experienced world. In ordinary circumstances you cannot experience infinity.
The big bang theory fits what science observes...at the moment.... but this, ofcourse, does not mean it is an absolute truth. It still needs testing till something else comes along, if it does.

I'm interested in your vision;

"Infinity is vacuum in the state of; T=OK

but I don't understand it.
Would you be willing to explain it in more detail to people who are not too bright, like me.

Regards,
Eddie.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: socratus on 22/09/2008 19:33:34
Hi Socratus,

Yes; scientists work in guages which are mostly balanced totalities. Yet history has taught that the boundaries of these totalities need to be continually extended. As you say, they cannot work with a concept like 'infinity'.

I think the reason is that science is primarily a process of thinking of an idea to explain how things are and then observing if that idea correctly describes what is in the experienced world. In ordinary circumstances you cannot experience infinity.
The big bang theory fits what science observes...at the moment.... but this, ofcourse, does not mean it is an absolute truth. It still needs testing till something else comes along, if it does.

I'm interested in your vision;

"Infinity is vacuum in the state of; T=OK

but I don't understand it.
Would you be willing to explain it in more detail to people who are not too bright, like me.

Regards,
Eddie.

==================================
At first of everything the Universe is Infinite Vacuum
in the state of T=0K. Why?
Because it is visual fact.

The Universe as whole is Kingdom of Coldness.
Now the physicists think that this Kingdom of Coldness
in a state of T=2,7K ( after big bang).
But this state is limited and temporary.
Why can it be limited and temporary ?
Because in the Universe astronomers found enormous spaces
 without any material mass or energy it means these spaces in state
T=0K. Only  mass and energy  can warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
 But the detected material mass of the  matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
  p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it  cannot “ close “ the Universe and therefore
 the Universe  is “ open”, endless and this small mass can warm up the
Kingdom of Coldness only in it some limited and local points.
Therefore astrophysicists  search for “ dark matter” because it will save the
“ law of gravitation “ as a first law of the Universe and it will
warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
#
The cosmological constant of Universe is  zero or near to it.
This physical quantity cannot “ close” the Universe therefore
 the Universe is endless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
 
 ==============..
P.S.
If somebody belief in “ big bang”, he must take in calculation
that T=2,7K expands and therefore T=2,7K is temporary
parameter and with time it will go to T=0K.

=================…


Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: syhprum on 23/09/2008 07:16:37
Take a look here

http://www.physorg.com/news141317146.html
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: socratus on 23/09/2008 14:31:55
Take a look here

http://www.physorg.com/news141317146.html
===========================
Questions from article:
http://www.physorg.com/news141317146.html
 
1.
what happened BEFORE the big bang,
 2.
whether there was a "before."
3.
what may have happened in a "pre-big bang."
4.
"What banged? Where did it come from?"
5.
"Is ours the only universe? If so, how did it come to exist?"
6.
What are :
“the big bounce," "the multiverse," "the cyclic theory,"
"parallel worlds," even "soap bubbles."………
 7.
What is:  "Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang."
8.
……
particle smasher might discover extra dimensions

What are the extra dimensions: 4-D...etc ?
9.
“ shadow”……
travel between parallel universes ………..( !!! )
and cast a "shadow" that scientists might be able to detect. ……..
The shadow might take…….

/ one more scientific  fairy - tale /   
10.
Last August, ground and satellite observations revealed
what appeared to be an enormous "hole in the universe,"
a mostly empty region of the sky, 900 million light-years
wide - about 5 billion trillion miles -…………

Where are the gravitational waves here ?
11.

At a Vatican conference in 1951, Pope Pius XII said the big bang was consistent
with church doctrine.
"Creation took place in time, therefore there is a creator, therefore God exists!"
 the pope declared.

The theological explanation of the world's existence
 cannot ( !!!) lie at a different level  from scientific understanding.

The materialistic world gets its finite being
 from an infinite being.!!! (T=0K )

The universe that cycles endlessly through creation and destruction...
{between Vacuum and  Materialistic world.)!!!
=========================..
Many questions and the answer is one: T=0K.
!!!
==============================…





Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: socratus on 29/09/2008 16:46:37
What is our intellect ?

1.
We don't know what we are talking about"
/ Nobel laureate David Gross referring to the current state of string theory ./
2.
It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. ”
(Feynman. 1987)
3.
When asked which interpretation of QM he favored,
Feynman replied: "Shut up and calculate."
4.
when I was first learning quantum mechanics as a graduate student
at Harvard, a mere 30 years after the birth of the subject.
"You'll never get a PhD if you allow yourself to be distracted
by such frivolities," they kept advising me, "so get back to serious
business and produce some results."
"Shut up," in other words, "and calculate."
And so I did, and probably turned out much the better for it.
/ N. David Mermin /
5.
The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?
Paul Dirac .
6.
“ Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things,
you just get used to them.”
/ John von Neumann ./
7.
Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time,
manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection.
/ Richard Feynman./
8.
" I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all
if we just apply working mathematical rules;
that's not what the physicist should be satisfied with."
 /Dirac /
9.
Etc……..

Conclusion from some article:
"One of the best kept secrets of science is that physicists
have lost their grip on reality."
================= .
P.S.

What is our intellect ?
We can see this practically :
after “ big bang “ all Galaxies run away from us.
#
This is our normal intellect in our normal Orwell’s farm.

 =================..
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: rosalind dna on 29/09/2008 17:56:06
The CERN Physcists won't know until the LHC starts working again next year as it's at present out of action.

We will find out one day if there was a "before" the Big Bang or it was just a load gases ready to happen that started off the galaxies/universe that's now. Or not But it was a bit too
hyper then and even though I did find it fascinating watching/listening to the start of the LHC in early September.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: socratus on 30/09/2008 05:38:54
Comment by Rick.

Well you know there are some serious problems with the standard model.

And well high energy particle physics has been the big budget
backbone of physics, and yet the type of physics they engage in,
is not the type of physics you see in the every day world.
It just doesn't apply to anything other than supercolliders.

Giant electro-magnets essentially. It is the physics of giant electro-
magnets and so it knows nothing about mass, and everything about
what happens in a giant electro-magnet.

Now the problem arises when you take what you have done in a giant
electro-magnet and try to say that this is how the universe works. No,
this is how a giant electro-magnet works.

And so then you see people spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of
dollars trying to make a fusion reactor, based on information from a
giant electro-magnet. And all attempts have failed. Not only that, but
the recommendations made have been, look, first go back and learn how
things work, because clearly you have not got a clue what you are
doing, or how atoms work at all, so before you spend another hundred
billion dollars on yet another project which shows zero results,
perhaps you had better learn some real physics.

And that true, because you see you can do experiment after experiment
and get absolutely nowhere, if your theory is wrong in the first
place. You will just look for results that match your hypothesis, and
you will make erroneous conclusions, and you will make further
erroneous assumptions, and none of it will be accurate, and none of
it will lead to any useful predictions.

You know its clear to me, that either the people at the LHC do not
know much about atoms, or they are merely playing Devil's Advocate,
because they are claiming that they will be sending mass or matter
around the collider at almost the speed of light, and special
relativity says that to say that you can do that means you know
nothing much about physics at all.

So then when they send em waves around there they call those
particles, and when they send em waves around there they can just make
up whatever they want and they just say well energy is the same as
mass.
But E=mc2 is not about em waves it is F=ma
See how it is just renamed? Isn't a cute trick to rename old formulas
and everyone will think you are amazing?
Like Newton renamed F=ma to w=mg same thing again.
So energy equals mass times the speed of light but it is not electro-
magnetic energy, it is force. Kinetic energy.
Much of physics is about renaming things in a confusing manner in
order to make yourself famous.
To answer your question about what is the intellect, there is a
technical answer such as that your capacity depends on your computers
capacity and your software (your brain and your capacity to reason),
but there is another answer and that is that intellect is uncommon,
common sense.

Rick.
 rick_so...@hotmail.com
=============================
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: johnbrandy on 06/12/2008 07:45:09
"What existed before the Big Bang?" What existed before the "theoretical" existence of the known universe? What is perfectly clear is that the answer to this question is completely unknowable. Why, because the 'Big Bang' is a theory, not a fact. Extrapolating from a theory is the very definition of speculation, and therefore qualifies as a thought experiment, and not grounded science. This distinction must be established, if we intend to maintain scientific integrity. All of the theories herein are interesting, and creative, yet fall within the realm of pure speculation, not established science. Why, because there is no well established fact as to the existence of the Big Bang theory. It is as yet a theory, not a fact, and any extrapolation from such, is subject to serious criticism.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Bikerman on 06/12/2008 16:06:01
This is a profoundly misguided view of science.
ALL of science is theory - that is how it functions. There is no dichotomy between theory and fact. A theory is a model of various phenomena based on observation and experiment (fact). People constantly confuse this with the everyday use of the word 'theory' - ie a speculation or hypothesis. The use of the word 'theory' in science is very different.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Bikerman on 06/12/2008 21:33:54
Comment by Rick.

Well you know there are some serious problems with the standard model.
So I presume your proposal is to adopt a pseudo-scientific approach to the matter?
When you say there are problems with the standard model I notice that you don't actually say what they are. I presume you mean the inability of the standard model to account for mass and for gravity? In that case then what better way to proceed than to look for the Higgs Boson and the Graviton? What would you prefer? Speculation?

You seem to have a profound misunderstanding of science. Experiment is not done to confirm theory - just the opposite in fact.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 06/12/2008 21:57:04
Comment by Rick.

Well you know there are some serious problems with the standard model.


Problems? Or gaps in our understanding? The reason for the difference in mass of some particles is as yet unexplained, as Bikerman said; but that doesn't mean it will forever be inexplicable. Maybe the LHC will throw some light on the subject. Don't write off a current theory (in this instance, the Higgs boson) simply because we haven't yet proven its existence.

Also, again as Bikerman said, science is not about proving theories. It is about trying to explain why things are the way they are. Scientists don't just pluck theories out of thin air. There are 2 approaches - the top down approach where what is observable is studied and a theory developed to fit, and the bottom up where predictions about the real world are sought from theoretical considerations. Wild speculations fit into neither of these.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: johnbrandy on 21/12/2008 08:10:14
Re: Birkeman, "All of science is theory - that is how it functions." This statement reflects a truly limited understanding of established scientific understanding and methodology. Sound theories are grounded upon science that is verifiable, and predictable, as well as accord with, primarily, and constitute laws and principles, derived from observation, and logical deduction; the very essences of scientific 'truth'.  Must we not distinguish between hard science; well established, and verifiable, and soft science, (theory and speculation}, that dilutes rational thought. Merely restating, or varying an idea or concept, does not expand or validate the concept. True understanding is a function of direct insight, and knowledge. Such understanding is not necessarily amenable to ordinary perception. A  greater, larger, and more disciplined perception is absolutely necessary to perceive the obvious truth herein.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 21/12/2008 08:56:53
HERE (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-11/) is a good 1 for you - Loop Quantum Cosmology. Boing Boing!
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: TECHFACTOR on 22/12/2008 21:07:58
 I think that what was here be for the universe is still here today. I imagine that our universe is inside A dimension one among many just like our galaxy or our solar system or our planet etc.etc.etc.I think this dimension was impacted by another floating in space.except instead or floating through dark matter as we do "inside" our dimesion our dimesion floats through gravity itself...when the two impacted each other there has A exchange of materials;bam the big bang. No one knows and may never know?Think of what makes you feel comfortable and that is what it is;until proven other wise...(If the universe had no life in it too see and wander;would it really exist???)TECHFACTOR:OUT
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Bikerman on 23/12/2008 04:54:53
Re: Birkeman, "All of science is theory - that is how it functions." This statement reflects a truly limited understanding of established scientific understanding and methodology. Sound theories are grounded upon science that is verifiable, and predictable, as well as accord with, primarily, and constitute laws and principles, derived from observation, and logical deduction; the very essences of scientific 'truth'.  Must we not distinguish between hard science; well established, and verifiable, and soft science, (theory and speculation}, that dilutes rational thought. Merely restating, or varying an idea or concept, does not expand or validate the concept. True understanding is a function of direct insight, and knowledge. Such understanding is not necessarily amenable to ordinary perception. A  greater, larger, and more disciplined perception is absolutely necessary to perceive the obvious truth herein.
Err...I think you have missed the entire point, and gone off on some postmodernist ego trip.
What is this gibberish about 'greater, larger perception' and 'obvious truth'? Sounds like religion to me.
Science does not deal in 'truth'. It models observable reality. As observation and experiment progress then the models progress. That is basic.
'Soft science' as you put it, is hypothesis (ie not confirmed by experimental/observational data). Theory is different (although both words are frequently misused in common parlance). A genuine theory is the work of many scientists over time, explains many related phenomena, has been tested independently and survived the testing. That does not make it immutable - simply the best model we currently have. Thus Quantum Mechanics (particularly QED) and Relativity are the two current models/theories in physics. We KNOW that Relativity is incomplete - there is no question about it. It may be that an existing hypothesis (m-theory for example) could offer a way forward. It may not - I'm sceptical. SOMETHING, however, will have to emerge to take us to the next level and enable a new model/theory to emerge which can go where the current theory breaks.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Mr. Scientist on 24/12/2008 19:48:19
Joshua Brown asked the Naked Scientists:

Hello

I have a question I can't get my head around.

If the galaxy and all that exists was created by the big bang, then what created the big bang? Surely there was nothing in existence before the big bang took place, and nothing in existence for the big bang to take place in the first place, simply because nothing existed.

So how then did it take place if there was nothing before it? What was existence before the big bang?

What I'm getting at, basically, is how did something come from nothing? (maybe I don't understand the concept correctly?)


What do you think?

Right. First of all, yes you are right, despite some scientists interpretations of the infinite concept of birth from nothing situation, so this is hard to talk about, because these differences exist for many other differences. In relativity, if space just began at big bang, then so must have time as well, because in the end, the Minkowskian Equations describing space and time, is linked them as four-matrix spacetime dimension. The unity of the birth of time, would be the same as the birth of space, and vice versa.

So there may be no escaping this, as current theory suggests, with a great deal of evidence, some would argue proof. There is however, another option. There is a theory called the Ekpyrotic Thoery, which is  revolutional, but bold theory (which some have argued is at best, speculational), suggests that the universe was in a frozen state before big bang. It also says this could have continued for eons. Maybe hundreds of eons.

The big bang was result, (under this theory), of a collision with this universe with another. We call these brane collisions, and under an Everett Interpretation of quantum mechanics, this would suggest that layers all superpositioned together, have a flux, in which only two universes bend into each others existences. The strong interelation, may as well be related to the gravity and collapses in the wave function. This collision is supposed to have ''awoke'' the dorment energy in  this universe, so the Ekpyrotic Theory can be seen not only a mechanism for the energy and spacetime in this universe, but also giving a timen (literally), before big bang.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: johnbrandy on 26/12/2008 06:48:38
Re: Birkeman, "a greater, larger, and more disciplined perception is absolutely necessary to perceive the obvious truth herein," applies specifically to your spectacular statement that all science is theory. If you are suggesting, but not specifically, or otherwise indicating that "all" science is essentially provisional, than, without realizing it, we are actually in accord. But to proffer that all science is theory, without qualification, is manifestly wrong. Your distinction between a formal theory, and the 'casual' understanding, employed in common parlance, does not justify, or elucidate your usage, in any logical, or scientific sense. Therefore, please explain, without your inappropriate or helpful insults, exactly why, "all of science is theory," and how such theory functions as science. My purpose is to discuss, explore, and learn, through rational, and hopefully friendly dialogue, the essence, or a least the most reasonable explanation/s within a given subject under serious consideration. If my take is unreasonable, it is not intentional, quite the contrary. Please simple point to the fallacy in my opinion; point by point, in a logical and rational manner, if your goal is to maintain scientific integrity. If you can teach me, stretch my mind, correct my mistakes, I benefit.

I offer a few examples to make the argument that all science is not theory. Constructing bridges, skyscrapers, cars, airplanes, rockets, cell phones, and so forth, require concrete scientific understanding, not theory. At the point it is possible to construct anything, based upon theory, it is no longer theory, but demonstrated fact. At the point it is possible to verify and demonstrate all of the relevant elements, or constituents that scientifically characterize a theory, it is no longer a theory, but fact. The best example is perhaps the ancient theory that the earth was flat, and harbored edges. Exploration and scientific observation proved otherwise. Therefore the theory was replaced with fact. There are many such examples. This fact of science is hopefully obvious, and requires no further explanation.           
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: yor_on on 26/12/2008 11:50:30
Well Joshua, I'm mighty glad you asked this question, yuletime and all:)
There is a very interesting but somehow forgotten explanation to it.
Why it's forgotten, well as all true geniuses this one also is misunderstood by the doubting masses...
And now without any further ado, allow me to present the true and definite explanation to 'it all'.

" It starts on that plane where the smallest of our particles forms from the fuzzy weave of possibilities, every thing we call reality, is just one of the possible directions those particles that build us and our world takes and took, simultaneously and continuously, for every moment in time. But then, you may ask. How do you explain that we only experience this reality? Ah, to that there are some different answers, the simplest, being to accept that we exist as we do, because that is the only possibility we can experience. There is off course that alternate explanation of the old man of Krell.

It states that probability has a difficult case of hay fever and that our worlds are like soap bubbles floating from his nose created by his sneezing. What will happen when the pollen season is over we don't know though. It may be that all worlds end. This doesn't imply that there can't be alternate world lines, even if they, from our point of view, have a lower probability, or if you like, a nonexistent reality.


Now, bear with me. Our reality had always had the strongest probability. The proof of this is easily found when viewing backward in time. Backward because that is the only way we can view, or for that sake make conclusions of what might really be. Nothing can be said to exist until that moment of probability have been passed into the wake of history and therefore left us with the indubitable result of its existence. Like that paycheck you've got last month, remember it? So huge when you waited for it to materialize, so pathetically small after you used it.


So now you're getting a headache? Don't worry, it can only get better. Time travels then, can we travel back in time? Of course we can, whenever you remember your loved ones you are there, in a way of speaking. But in the same way as your remembrance may not be the exact replica of the actual experience, so will your traveling backward in time not deliver you to the world line that you went out from. And now you wonder, what will then happen to my world line if I go back and kill my forefather? Nothing, I say! Nothing. The probability of you finding your self in that exact world line that you've followed since your birth, before jumping backwards that is, is nil and not existent. So kill him if you like and be done with it. Be aware though, that you might find it hard to find your way home afterwards.


So you say, as you happily contemplate your new possibilities of getting even with those slights and hurts you collected through your childhood, what then about coming back after said fact, that is, traveling forward in time again? Here we have two simple outcomes, the first consider you getting back to your own world line. Even if it may seem to you as to belong in the future, in fact it actually belongs to your past. In that way you can travel back with impunity, as long as you accept that the chances of you finding you way back to your own world line are somewhat less than zero.

Or we can put it this way, the chances of you winning the lotto every day of your life, are immensely greater than you going 'forward' to your original world line, in fact you will find uncountable world lines, just not yours. But to travel where no possibilities ever have crystallized, where no worldline yet exist, where nobody threaded before, the unknown future. That my friend is a No No. That is in the hands, tentacles of? Who knows??


In the end, according to the old man of krell, all the different world lines will flow into one continuous ocean, as entropy increases with all matters and energy you had, into that relaxing state of inert uniformity. And that my friends, are going to be one timeless heck of a vacation, where all finally can enjoy their well deserved rest.

But before this happy occasion I'm afraid that we will have to suffer that, for every action one chose, or may chose in time, simultaneously there will be created alternate actions, in which endless versions of one self splits out immediately in differentiate world lines. Which in their turn will split up in endless. And the same goes for every phenomenon, material as metaphysical..

seen in another light one could say that time grows backward, that we are merely observers sitting still, seeing and reliving time as it unfold itself backwards into 'history' . And where that would leave the old man of Krell ? Well, ?? Awhh the ... "

And now, there can be no more questions to ask I say :)

Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Bikerman on 26/12/2008 20:32:13
Re: Birkeman, "a greater, larger, and more disciplined perception is absolutely necessary to perceive the obvious truth herein," applies specifically to your spectacular statement that all science is theory. If you are suggesting, but not specifically, or otherwise indicating that "all" science is essentially provisional, than, without realizing it, we are actually in accord.
Well, firstly why not try to get my name correct without the implied insults?
Quote
But to proffer that all science is theory, without qualification, is manifestly wrong. Your distinction between a formal theory, and the 'casual' understanding, employed in common parlance, does not justify, or elucidate your usage, in any logical, or scientific sense. Therefore, please explain, without your inappropriate or helpful insults, exactly why, "all of science is theory," and how such theory functions as science.
Certainly. Theory is the word used for a model of perceived reality. Other words such as 'truth' are entirely inappropriate. We know, for example that all models are just that - models. "The map is not the territory".
Now, that does not mean, or even imply, that a specific model is wrong. It simply allows for the fact that it is incomplete. Thus the Newtonian model of gravity works well, but if you apply it inappropriately (ie to systems moving at high relative velocity, or within a large gravity well), then it simply doesn't work.
The same applies to Relativity. If you apply it appropriately (ie to macroscopic observation) then the model holds. When you try to apply it to the quantum world, however, the model breaks. Likewise the model of the quantum world is incomplete - when we try to describe observable reality in quantum terms then we have the 'enigma' of the wave-function collapse, which we don't really understand.
Now, given that our models are incomplete then it is entirely inappropriate to talk in terms of certainty and truth. That does not mean we have to adopt some post-modernist interpretation where all views are equally valid. Nor does it legitimate the term 'provisional' - that implies much more 'uncertainty' than I believe is warranted. We are stuck, therefore, with the word 'theory' to describe scientific models. Now, I fully understand that this word is not ideal. In common parlance it means speculation, whereas in scientific use it means so much more. I would be quite happy to consider another 'untainted' word for scientific models of reality, but each alternative has its own problems. Maybe the only workable alternative would be to coin an entirely new word. Until that time, however, my point stands - science consists of theory.
Quote
I offer a few examples to make the argument that all science is not theory. Constructing bridges, skyscrapers, cars, airplanes, rockets, cell phones, and so forth, require concrete scientific understanding, not theory. At the point it is possible to construct anything, based upon theory, it is no longer theory, but demonstrated fact. At the point it is possible to verify and demonstrate all of the relevant elements, or constituents that scientifically characterize a theory, it is no longer a theory, but fact. The best example is perhaps the ancient theory that the earth was flat, and harbored edges. Exploration and scientific observation proved otherwise. Therefore the theory was replaced with fact. There are many such examples. This fact of science is hopefully obvious, and requires no further explanation.           
No...wrong. Firstly science is rarely obvious (that is why the basic questions are often the deepest). Consider one of your examples - constructing a bridge. We cannot accurately predict the behaviour of a bridge. We can model it with appropriate degrees of 'certainty' but when the physics become chaotic (with differential load patterns, wind harmonics and other factors) then the best models give a spread of possible outcomes. The same applies to your other examples. What we do is construct our 'kit' with a safety range, statistically determined, to make it as safe as we reasonably can.
Take the simple example of the Earth that you cite. It isn't round...it is an oblate spheroid. But that is just the start. It changes shape constantly due to the effect of tides, plate tectonics, volcanic activity and so on. Far from 'requiring no further explanation' we find that we need very complex models indeed and that those models are always approximations, not 'true'.
Try modelling a bridge (or the shape of the earth) really accurately and you will quickly see the problems. You need to incorporate relativity and QM into your model. It simply can't be done - we don't have the computational power to predict the quantum interactions of simple molecules, let alone complex engineering or 'natural' structures. We work on approximations which, all being well, will serve the purpose. To think of these approximations as 'fact' or 'true', however, is both untrue and dangerous.
In short, what we can do is say that certain hypotheses are false - that is no problem at all. When, however, you try to reverse that and say that certain theories represent some sort of truth then you run into the fundamental problem of induction. Hume realised this centuries ago and Popper proposed falsification instead. Nothing has changed.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: TECHFACTOR on 27/12/2008 03:54:17
"My Two Cents":I believe that somewhere out there is A even bigger universe except instead of galaxies floating in A sea of dark matter;there is A multitude of dimensions floating in A sea of gravity...And sometime in our distant past one of these dimensions bumped into ours causing A exchange of materials that exploded into our dimension sending matter into A antimatter environment;BAM THE BIG BANG!!! "Just an opinion."The truth is that nobody knows the answer too this question and probably never will. Study the facts adopt A hypothesis that you feel most comfortable with and that is the answer; or until someone proves other wise.(If the universe had never spawned life too look to the stars and wonder? Would it really exist???)TECHFACTOR:OUT 
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Bikerman on 27/12/2008 03:58:57
This sounds like a confused version of m-theory.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: TECHFACTOR on 27/12/2008 04:21:11
 Bikerman: Can you tell me more about this M-theory???TECHFACTOR:OUT 
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 27/12/2008 09:10:12
M-theory proposes that strings are 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane vibrating in an 11-dimensional space. It was formulated by Ed Witten (brainy bugger, him) & Petr Horava (who kept Witten in Czech  [:P] ) in an attempt to bring together the 5 main versions of string theory. To make matters a bit more complicated (well, he - Witten - wouldn't seem so brainy if people could understand him) he said that 11-dimensional M-theory is equivalent to 10-dimensional Heterotic string theory. Now, when a brainy bloke like Ed Witten says that 11 dimensions are equivalent to 10 dimensions, mere mortals such as I gasp "WTF!"  [:0] and head for the tequila.

However, if you have a brain the size of a planet you could try reading this (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:8w-JA3QhZw8J:hamilton.uchicago.edu/~sethi/Teaching/P484-W2004/hwitten.pdf+horava-witten&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk)
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: TECHFACTOR on 27/12/2008 17:10:28
Thanks Doc. Your right I cannot rap my brain around this subject. Bikerman this is A personal theory of A liquid universe I have; which is something I can rap my brain around. No matter how preposterous it may sound.I don't have know where near the education of some of the patrons on this forum.But besides learning A few things;I hope I can bring A lighter side to some of the hardcore scientific babble I have read here and maybe make A little sense of some of this for us educationally challenged.Thanks and keep the babble coming!TECHFACTOR:OUT     
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: socratus on 27/12/2008 17:25:58
"My Two Cents":I believe that somewhere out there is A even bigger universe except instead of galaxies floating in A sea of dark matter;there is A multitude of dimensions floating in A sea of gravity...And sometime in our distant past one of these dimensions bumped into ours causing A exchange of materials that exploded into our dimension sending matter into A antimatter environment;BAM THE BIG BANG!!! "Just an opinion."The truth is that nobody knows the answer too this question and probably never will. Study the facts adopt A hypothesis that you feel most comfortable with and that is the answer; or until someone proves other wise.(If the universe had never spawned life too look to the stars and wonder? Would it really exist???)TECHFACTOR:OUT 
============================
Dark energy may be vacuum
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uoc-dem011607.php


Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: TECHFACTOR on 27/12/2008 19:21:21
I agree with that assessment;but A Vacuum to where? TECHFACTOR:confused
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Mr. Scientist on 27/12/2008 20:14:34
Everything has to come from somewhere. If you can believe according to the big bang that nothing existed before time and space, then this nothingness turns out to be everything ever needed to create reality as we can see it.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Mr. Scientist on 27/12/2008 20:18:54
I agree with that assessment;but A Vacuum to where? TECHFACTOR:confused

I've not read the artical, but there was some speculation that dark energy could reside on of the many dimensions of string theory vacuum, with itself having 11 dimensions in all, 26 maximal dimensions for bosonic theory.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: nemanja on 28/12/2008 19:45:54
I am sorry for my English (it is not very well), but I have heard that it is not correctly to ask what happend before Big Bang, because it is not define time in that "period", because with Big Bang space and time together were created, it is just like to ask what like is on the temperature at minuse 274 or minus 300 degree Celsius
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Bikerman on 28/12/2008 19:50:12
I am sorry for my English (it is not very well), but I have heard that it is not correctly to ask what happend before Big Bang, because it is not define time in that "period", because with Big Bang space and time together were created, it is just like to ask what like is on the temperature at minuse 274 or minus 300 degree Celsius
Your English may not be perfect but I think it is certainly fit for purpose, since I understand your point very well.
Yes, the conventional picture is that time and space both came into existence at the 'instant' of the Big Bang. Some people disagree (google Neil Turok, for example) and string theory appears to offer the possibility that time is actually 'eternal'. This view is, however, pretty speculative and many physicists disagree with it. This is, of course, the beauty of science - it progresses and one day, hopefully, we might have an answer.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: nemanja on 28/12/2008 20:06:49
(I am on first year of faculty of physical electronics,where I can't learn strings ),and I want  to learn theory of superstrings, so could someone tell me what math(areas like vectors, tensors...) is needed to be known for understanding of this theory?
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 29/12/2008 10:19:16
nemanja.   Start by reading "The Road To Reality"  by Roger Penrose. This is the most readable maths textbook I know and I have read it through from cover to cover Try to do some of the exercises in that and if you really feel that you can take it further follow up some of the other books suggested.

Be sure to start at the very beginning and make sure that you fully understand every stage before going on to the next.  The biggest problem with mathematics is missing out a critical stage of understanding which then renders the rest of limited worth.

At what level is your current mathematical understanding?

To follow up your previous question.  The big bang model derives from projecting the observable history of the universe back before the period where the cosmic microwave background originated.  This model works well right back to our limits of observation in high energy physics experiments however it is bound to reach the limits at some point. 

The most fundamental properties of an understandable universe are the conservation of angular momentum and the conservation of energy and these imply that there must always have been something so to extend the big bang back to a mathematical singularity is probably wrong.

Recent workings with loop quantum gravity (look this up on Google) suggest going backwards in time you do reach a peak density before which the universe must have expanded.  So it appears likely that our big bang originated in a big crunch.  The logical problem is that it seems highly likely that our universe does not end in a big crunch.  But it does create a lot of little crunches in the form of black holes.  Also conditions in our universe seem finely balanced to create just about as many black holes as possible (look up Lee Smolin Life in the Cosmos)  The most probable result is our little crunches are someone else's big bangs.  but theres a fair bit of working to do before that can be proved adequately.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Mr. Scientist on 29/12/2008 11:41:48
(I am on first year of faculty of physical electronics,where I can't learn strings ),and I want  to learn theory of superstrings, so could someone tell me what math(areas like vectors, tensors...) is needed to be known for understanding of this theory?

A great deal of math is needed to understand this rather complicated theory.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: nemanja on 29/12/2008 15:34:40
Answer to Soul Surfer
Mine current knowledge of math is differential calculus and linear algebra from faculty, but from high school I know integrals, analytic geometry, complex numbers...
So I have a lot of things to learn :)
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 29/12/2008 17:17:29
Thats a good start

"The road ro reality" will take you right up to areas of mathematics needed to understand string theory and quantum gravity but remember to start the book from the very beginning there are probably theorems about things as basic as numbers numbers that you don't know about.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Bikerman on 29/12/2008 18:53:34
I endorse the recommendation. Road to Reality is a must read if you want to get into this stuff. Having said that, I'm still stuck at Chapter 20 - I must pick it up again soon :-)
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: demadone on 21/01/2009 09:09:31
Speaking of religion. There is a brilliant passage in the book of Isaiah. It says 'due to God's abundance in dynamic energy everything was created.'
E=mc2 in other words. SO energy came first and then was made into matter.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: demadone on 21/01/2009 09:37:12
I always thought dark energy is a property of a vacuum. My theory is that objects stop accelerating only if they are in a non-vacuum medium or under gravity.
In a vacuum complete absence of gravity imposing objects, a vacuum can actually allow an acceleration to be infinite. Only a derivative of the derivative of that acceleration is the speed of the expanding universe. The limit is the speed of light at which matter disintegrates to form a black hole.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Vern on 21/01/2009 12:49:45
There's some really heavy stuff in this thread. It's a good read. The thing that strikes me is everyone seems to assume that space and time came into existence with the Big Bang. I don't see the need for that. A Big Bang could have sprung up within a universe in which space and time already existed.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 21/01/2009 13:46:18
Has anyone seen this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7440217.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7440217.stm)

The scientists concerned think there may be a detetable signature in the CMBR from before the Big Bang.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Vern on 21/01/2009 14:20:07
Has anyone seen this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7440217.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7440217.stm)

The scientists concerned think there may be a detetable signature in the CMBR from before the Big Bang.
Thanks for the link; I have it bookmarked. There is something that has always troubled me about the CMBR. Before it was discovered, Eddington and group calculated that space debris would be heated by starlight to about 4 degrees K. The Big Bang advocates were saying that Big Bang remnants should produce about 20 degrees K. Then we discovered the CMBR to be about 4 degrees K. How did it suddenly become true that the CMBR supported the Big Bang theory?
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 21/01/2009 16:50:28
There were a lot of estimates of the CMBR temperature ranging from 0.75K (Walther Nernst, 1938) to 50K (George Gamow, 1946). After Wilson & Penzias discovered the CMBR in 1965, scientists quickly grabbed their sliderules and re-worked their calculations.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Vern on 21/01/2009 18:26:04
There were a lot of estimates of the CMBR temperature ranging from 0.75K (Walther Nernst, 1938) to 50K (George Gamow, 1946). After Wilson & Penzias discovered the CMBR in 1965, scientists quickly grabbed their sliderules and re-worked their calculations.
Yep; and forgot about Eddington's estimates.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 21/01/2009 18:45:17
Why are you singling out Eddington's estimate?
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Vern on 21/01/2009 19:50:49
Why are you singling out Eddington's estimate?
Eddington's was an estimate of temperature of the universe based upon space debris being warmed by starlight. The starlight is still there warming away. So why isn't the Big Bang's contribution to the CMBR what is extra on top of starlight-warmed space debris?
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 21/01/2009 21:37:59
Why are you singling out Eddington's estimate?
Eddington's was an estimate of temperature of the universe based upon space debris being warmed by starlight.

Yes. But why are you singling out that estimate?
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Vern on 21/01/2009 22:52:02
Quote from: DoctorBeaver
Yes. But why are you singling out that estimate?
I didn't know about other estimates of the stars contribution. My thinking was that part of the CMBR would be due to the warming of space debris by stars and galaxies. Or maybe all of it might be due to warming of space debris by stars and galaxies. [:)]
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 21/01/2009 22:55:30
Inside galaxies there may well be a warming. But in intergalactic space I doubt it is noticeable.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: nepcon81876 on 28/01/2009 18:30:47
herbaholic has an interesting point.that perhaps our iniverse was created by the collision of 2 other universe's in the "multi-verse" model of thinking.but that raises more questions than it answers. The original question bascically asks where did "everything"come from if there was nothing and "no-where/time/space" 4 it to be created "in".so if it did come from othet universes colliding in multi-universal/dimensions and such,WHERE DID THOSE UNIVERSES COME ABOUT TO EXIST? it's like saying,"where the hell did this baby come from,there was nothing here yesterday? oh,it came from mom and dad "colliding" [:I]" o.k.,where did mom and dad come from.so on so on so on..............into infinity. i recently posted a similiar question about "time-o" before the BB.if their are an infinite amount of universes in an infinite amount of dimensions that are infinitly colliding creating an infinite amount of other universes and dimensions,their still had to be a point of "THE ORIGINAL" or PRIME ONE.doesnt their?or does the BB just boil down to the age old paradoxal question,which came first,the chicken or the egg?Mind boggling to say the least. [???]
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 28/01/2009 18:49:30
nepcon - I'm glad I'm not the only 1 whose brain hurts thinking about such things. It's not easy trying to get to grips with the concept of an event happening without somewhere or sometime for it to happen in.

It has been suggested here and in other places that as space & time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, what existed prior to that event is not describable in terms we can understand. I don't profess to understand some of those theories.

There is currently an experiment underway to study the CMBR with the aim of finding a signature of what existed before the Big Bang. But, as you rightly pointed out, we then have the problem of how did that (the pre-Big Bang state) get there.

Quote
which came first,the chicken or the egg?

The egg. Dinosaurs laid eggs and they were around a long time before chickens!  [:P]
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Vern on 28/01/2009 23:40:05
Inside galaxies there may well be a warming. But in intergalactic space I doubt it is noticeable.
Four degrees Kelvin is not noticeable. You have to get a huge antenna horn and some powerful electronics before you can notice it [:)]
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: akhenaten on 28/03/2009 21:56:23
I suppose being human I realise that there was a time when I did not exist but I understand others existed. If I resulted from a "big bang" or just normal sexual intercourse is not a thing I have ever asked my parents about, but surely something happened. Why it happened, is another thing I never dared ask my parents just is case it/I was a mistake and a matter of possible embarrassment.
Scientists are in a similar situation so will not, cannot speculate as to what existed before the "Big Bang" so logically they are not in a position to dismiss any idea!
Either way you look at it; everything started with a "big bang" or everything always existed neither answers the questions of how or why, but here we are. I can only think/feel we are missing something obvious like consciouness. To me there seems no point in there being anything if there is no consciousness of it at all anywhere, this doesn't have to be restricted to human consciouness.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 29/03/2009 10:18:17

...but there was some speculation that dark energy could reside on of the many dimensions of string theory vacuum, with itself having 11 dimensions in all, 26 maximal dimensions for bosonic theory.

26D bosonic string theory was discredited a long time ago. I think I'm right in saying that was the original theory that had the tachyon (also discredited) in it.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Raghavendra on 29/03/2009 10:19:56
when you ask this question i should really say....

   No idea.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: tumzoli on 30/03/2009 22:46:48
I just cant believe in a big bang theory! there are infinite amounts of variables one can consider. Firstly it  is impossible for there to be absolute "nothing" nothing is something, the concept of nothing cannot be described by a word.The universe is such a miracle, a part of human life that actually truly cannot be explained!Its as if life was a mistake as if we where never meant to be but we are. I don't think that humans for as long as we are on this planet will ever fully grasp what we know as space, we seek answers in theories and beliefs of extra terrestrial life. I understand that its naive to think that in our universe there is no other life but thats if you believe there is a universe, I watched a documentary on quantum physics and parallel universes and it gave me some insight into different possibilities.My theory of life is! is that we are in a see through box and aliens are playing a bullshit game with us!
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: GC on 18/04/2009 03:03:31
Hi, new member here! Been exploring and came across this thread and have always pondered this question.
After alot of research feel the answer lies outside our universe and inside black holes. As the universe expands, time is born so that matter can exist, before the expansion takes place time is not a factor so no events can occour and matter cannot exist.

THEORY OF ORIGIN

Black holes. As far as I know there is no way to calculate the amount of matter that a black hole can swallow, I'm hoping it is infinite...

As more and more massive stars become supernova and then black holes eventually there will be more black holes than there is matter in the universe, at that time black holes will be in relative proximity to each other thus causing mutual attraction through gravitational force.
All the black holes will join together to make a supermassive black hole that will swallow all the matter in the universe!! Once this has happened then there will be no more universe so even the black hole will not exist as there will be no time for it to exist in.

At this point the previously confined and infinitely compressed hot matter in the singularity will be released again in the form of an explosion, (big bang) a new universe will be created. The time between this happening is some sort of limbo state where all known matter is compressed hugely and becomes very hot.

QUESTIONS

Was there ever a first big bang or is this "event" an infinite loop? That may sound stupid but we know that some things are infinite like space time curvature/ How could any mind comprehend that question? These questions seem to offer a magical solution, a godly presence that for me has to be logically denied.
Lastly not understanding the process of space expanding, the actual physics behind time becoming a reality, what force is behind this? That one really gets me frustrated!

Thanks for reading, hope to hear some more scientific theories :)
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Vern on 18/04/2009 15:45:11
Quote from: GC
QUESTIONS

Was there ever a first big bang or is this "event" an infinite loop? That may sound stupid but we know that some things are infinite like space time curvature/ How could any mind comprehend that question? These questions seem to offer a magical solution, a godly presence that for me has to be logically denied.
Lastly not understanding the process of space expanding, the actual physics behind time becoming a reality, what force is behind this? That one really gets me frustrated!

Thanks for reading, hope to hear some more scientific theories :)
I speculate a lot, and in so doing have described all the basic workings of the universe, to my own satisfaction, but not to the satisfaction of anyone else. So I hesitate to post the speculative notions. But since you ask:

My speculation about the universe is that it has existed forever. Black holes don't exist, but almost black holes do. These almost black holes are recycling machines which come into existence at the centre of galaxies and convert everything, including heavy metals, into pure energy. These monsters squirt this energy out in beams perpendicular to their accretion disks. The energy and energetic particles collide in the far reaches of space and matter accumulates from these collisions.

So, to me, the universe is a gigantic recycling entity, constantly changing matter to energy and energy to matter in an endless process.

The container of my speculations is at

http://photontheory.com/
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: psi on 18/04/2009 19:33:00
I think its impossible to imagine absolute nothingness

Which is why Atheism is the 'greatest' faith, as it is easier to imagine a God than Absolute Nothing.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Vern on 18/04/2009 20:02:17
I just had a thought, believe it or not [;D] I'm not quite proficient enough in the maths to come to a solid conclusion, but it seems to me that time, being part of the equation of acceleration, would limit gravity and so prevent massiveness from accumulating to the extent of a singularity.

This should limit gravity in a similar way as the speed of light limits mass to speeds less than c.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: yor_on on 19/04/2009 09:49:00
There seem to be a statistical approach to our universe. What is possible at a quantum level, as for example Jim Bobs thread about atoms bouncing away faster than they collided due to the internal 'movements' inside the atoms gets 'equalized' in our macroscopic world. That is to me a clear indication of there existing different rules for a 'quantum world' and our own. You can see the same type of principle ruling for example 'dead' and 'living' matter.

There are a lot of 'transitional' evidence pointing to different 'states' of existing. If we to that add chaos theory and the idea of it not being possible to 'backtrack' its so called bifurcations aka 'way paths/splits' then you will have a universe where we will have to create a theory from 'scratch' without really knowing if it will lead to our universe at all. Even if we succeeded in experimentally creating such a primeval 'state' that we expect to lead to a 'Big Bang' or similar there will be a much higher statistical probability for the 'bifurcations' creating a spacetime to choose another paths, creating something very unlike our own.

The only way to expect it otherwise, that I can see, is if there would be 'hidden' nature constants forcing our universe as the most probable outcome. There seems to be such in Chaos theory, I don't remember who found one but I remember that he spent a lot of governmental money flying looking at clouds :) A very bright guy actually.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: Vern on 19/04/2009 18:49:39
Quote from: yor_on
That is to me a clear indication of there existing different rules for a 'quantum world' and our own. You can see the same type of principle ruling for example 'dead' and 'living' matter.
I think the rules are the same; it is just that for probability to function correctly you need lots of stuff. It is like trying to think of a single wave length of light. When we are accustomed to thinking in terms of probabilities and Fourier transforms, a vision of a single wave length doesn't materialize in the mind.

Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: irish del on 01/05/2009 22:29:54
A really really bored god......
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: sHiMmY on 03/05/2009 20:26:16
The concept of 'before' implies TIME. If you are considering a region (not a time) in which the idea of time does not apply, then you can't use time - based words, such as 'before', with which to discuss it.

So if we cant used time based words to speak theoreticly about "the big bang" what words can we use?
What if there was something there before the big bang, would we then change when time started?
Were saying that before the big bang there was nothing but it is only a theory, im sure everyone here has a theory of how the universe came into existance, but i don't think that there was ever nothingness. Is infinity not a posiblity to anyone? can nothing last forever? what about us, i know our bodys decay when we die but then the soil absorbs us, we become pasrt of many things, they die and make many more, maybe something like that hapens with universes... maybe not, only my view on the matter

~sHiMmY
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: common_sense_seeker on 07/05/2009 14:48:18
The concept of 'before' implies TIME. If you are considering a region (not a time) in which the idea of time does not apply, then you can't use time - based words, such as 'before', with which to discuss it.

So if we cant used time based words to speak theoreticly about "the big bang" what words can we use?
What if there was something there before the big bang, would we then change when time started?
Were saying that before the big bang there was nothing but it is only a theory, im sure everyone here has a theory of how the universe came into existance, but i don't think that there was ever nothingness. Is infinity not a posiblity to anyone? can nothing last forever? what about us, i know our bodys decay when we die but then the soil absorbs us, we become pasrt of many things, they die and make many more, maybe something like that hapens with universes... maybe not, only my view on the matter

~sHiMmY
I have a answer to these basic questions. The simple visual images help understand a theory of a build-up of matter before the Big Bang.

MOD EDIT - SPAM YOUR FORUM ONCE MORE AND YOU WILL BE BANNED
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: orionsnebula on 24/06/2009 18:36:13
Joshua Brown asked the Naked Scientists:

Hello

I have a question I can't get my head around.

If the galaxy and all that exists was created by the big bang, then what created the big bang? Surely there was nothing in existence before the big bang took place, and nothing in existence for the big bang to take place in the first place, simply because nothing existed.

So how then did it take place if there was nothing before it? What was existence before the big bang?

What I'm getting at, basically, is how did something come from nothing? (maybe I don't understand the concept correctly?)


What do you think?
======================
Before “ big bang “ was God.
And the God created the Universe and everything.
I now only two ways to explain this fact.
1)
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm,  we have named " a  singular point".
And action, when  the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".

The Catholic Church agrees with this idea.
Look:
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/
 
2)
At first God ( according to Quantum theory ) used the
Vacuum ( T= 0K ) to create “ virtual particles “ and
 they ( according SRT + QED and GRT ) created the
Universe and Everything in this Materialistic Universe.

Nobody agrees with this idea.

3)
Do you have another idea ?
==========..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf

=============================================


hi friend,
of course, catholic church would agree with this cause, this theory involves God, however this is not physics anyways i thing , before big bang, i think their must be a larger or smaller body with infinite energy and exploded, giving rise to the big bang , i may be wrong
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: wanhafizi on 30/06/2009 05:08:58
This is what I think;

 Before big bang, nothing = 0

After big bang, there are matter(+1) and anti matter(-1), which means;

 Although matter exists, on AVERAGE, the universe is still empty, because (+1) + (-1) = 0.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: syhprum on 30/06/2009 11:47:01
But of course matter and anti matter were not created in precisely with same quantities otherwise all would have disappeared.
Due to this in-balance a "little" bit of matter was left over that now forms our universe.
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: LeeE on 30/06/2009 17:45:35
Actually, I don't think that there needed to be an imbalance in the amounts of matter and antimatter that were created to end up with the matter universe we have now.  All that was needed was for a tiny amount of both to not meet each other and mutually annihilate.

In terms of probability, which is more likely?

1.  Unequal amounts of matter and antimatter were created and 100% of antimatter was annihilated.

2.  Equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created but less than 100% annihilation occurred.

Afaik, there are some problems in ending up with unequal amounts of matter and antimatter without invoking additional factors, and the chances of 100% of anything occurring seem slim to me, so I'm totally undecided on this 'matter'   [;D]
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: wanhafizi on 02/07/2009 02:44:01
Actually, I don't think that there needed to be an imbalance in the amounts of matter and antimatter that were created to end up with the matter universe we have now.  All that was needed was for a tiny amount of both to not meet each other and mutually annihilate.

In terms of probability, which is more likely?

1.  Unequal amounts of matter and antimatter were created and 100% of antimatter was annihilated.

2.  Equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created but less than 100% annihilation occurred.

Afaik, there are some problems in ending up with unequal amounts of matter and antimatter without invoking additional factors, and the chances of 100% of anything occurring seem slim to me, so I'm totally undecided on this 'matter'   [;D]

Yup!

Probably the creation process was too violent, matter & it's anti-matter counterpart got pushed away far from each other, making inhalation process much less probable. And it's a fact that in vacuum, matter are very far away from each other. (Please refer matter density / cm3 in the vacuum of intergalactic space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum))
Title: What existed before the Big Bang?
Post by: sveur on 03/08/2009 21:45:04
I read A BriefER History in Time and understood it for a second. It was infinitively interresting. It explained everything.