The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What was before the big bang?  (Read 45101 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #125 on: 09/09/2015 15:02:06 »
In physics, a symmetry of a physical system is a physical or mathematical feature of the system (observed or intrinsic) that is preserved or remains unchanged under some transformation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_(physics)

How can nothing be a symmetry of everything. It doesn't remain unchanged.

Just saw this one Jeff...  Interesting!

But we are talking about a nothing that does become changed.

"What was before the Big Bang?"

So, by definition of nothing transforming into everything, symmetry is achieved. Edit: Nothing remains unchanged regarding nothing as a conceptual reality, in that nothing is still nothing.  It's just that everything has now taken its place.

Ok Jeff, to continue... Your post was thought inspiring, I appreciate that...

I have been further thinking and while your argument holds merit, my response is not sufficiently defined and is therefore on 'shaky' ground.

Quote:
"In physics, a symmetry of a physical system is a physical or mathematical feature of the system (observed or intrinsic) that is preserved or remains unchanged under some transformation."
Unquote

Before I start, I want to illuminate that it is a well documented fact that friction arrises between individuals approaching physics from the stand point of conceptual ideas and individuals approaching physics from the basis of mathematics.  May I suggest that we not fall into that trap, and be respectful of each other's contributions be they meaningful or not?

I make a case for everything and nothing to be symmetrical opposites of a physical reality.  It is appreciated that a symmetry of a physical system must remain unchanged under a transformation.  That nothing is 'replaced' with everything doesn't obviously reflect this balance of symmetry, it is true!  And perhaps I may concede that you are correct in stating this suggestion as unrealistic.  But looking more closely, is it possible that a symmetry of sorts can be achieved in the event of the cross over from nothing to everything itself?

Nothing in its 'existence', (unproven), it's existence being 'perhaps' signified by the fact that everything had to start from somewhere, has - by this reasoning - the potential for change.
Nothing can then be thought (experimentally) to be a state of reality and everything, in the event that we are in nothing's reference frame, is the negative of nothing. (I use the word negative tentatively, as I understand this is a mathematical term, one which may not apply to the context I am using it in... so if you will accept my terminology loosely). In everything's reference frame, nothing is the negative of everything.  In the cross over reference frame we see a positive negative, negative positive crossover.  As a concept, can an interchanged crossover be considered as symmetry?  Does this translate into feasible mathematical terms?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #126 on: 09/09/2015 21:27:36 »
Quote from: Timey
Before I start, I want to illuminate that it is a well documented fact that friction arrises between individuals approaching physics from the stand point of conceptual ideas and individuals approaching physics from the basis of mathematics.

I would like to add to that that friction can often arise between the groups you mention, on one hand, and the pragmatic bunch, on the other.  The label “crackpot” is frequently attached to pragmatists. 

Quote
Nothing in its 'existence', (unproven), it's existence being 'perhaps' signified by the fact that everything had to start from somewhere, has - by this reasoning - the potential for change.

Surely, existence is a quality of something that exists.  If you argue that “nothing” exists, are you not classifying it as “something that exists”.  Isn’t this a contradiction in terms?

Apparently you assume that “everything had to start from somewhere”.  Wouldn’t it be equally reasonable to assume that everything is eternal?

Quote
in the event that we are in nothing's reference frame,

Are you using “reference frame” in the relativistic sense, or do you give it some other meaning.  In either event, how do you define nothing’s F of R?

Quote
In the cross over reference frame we see a positive negative, negative positive crossover.

Would you see this as a reversible process?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #127 on: 09/09/2015 23:12:31 »
Quote from: Timey
Before I start, I want to illuminate that it is a well documented fact that friction arrises between individuals approaching physics from the stand point of conceptual ideas and individuals approaching physics from the basis of mathematics.

I would like to add to that that friction can often arise between the groups you mention, on one hand, and the pragmatic bunch, on the other.  The label “crackpot” is frequently attached to pragmatists.

Are you inferring some direct reference to this discussion in this consideration, or is that a more general observation?

Quote
Nothing in its 'existence', (unproven), it's existence being 'perhaps' signified by the fact that everything had to start from somewhere, has - by this reasoning - the potential for change.

Surely, existence is a quality of something that exists.  If you argue that “nothing” exists, are you not classifying it as “something that exists”.  Isn’t this a contradiction in terms?

I am arguing a case for nothing existing.  The paradox is that nothing is indicative of nothing existing. (Edit: as in nothing does not exist). My premiss for nothing existing (Edit: as in nothing does exist) is the existence of everything.  If everything is physically absent then nothing is the physical result.

Apparently you assume that “everything had to start from somewhere”.  Wouldn’t it be equally reasonable to assume that everything is eternal?

Well yes, of course, and I do believe that the steady state theory covered that one.  Problem being that we observe progression.  Progression being indicative of a beginning and an end, or a cycle.

Quote
in the event that we are in nothing's reference frame,

Are you using “reference frame” in the relativistic sense, or do you give it some other meaning.  In either event, how do you define nothing’s F of R?

Not sure, I just mean from the perspective of...  Again, not sure, what are F and R referring to here? Edit: (chuckle) :)

Quote
In the cross over reference frame we see a positive negative, negative positive crossover.

Would you see this as a reversible process?

No, not in the slightest, (edit: this would contravene the second law of thermodynamics) which is also a good point in reference to any potential symmetry of the situation.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2015 00:55:51 by timey »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #128 on: 10/09/2015 02:54:37 »
Quote
Are you inferring some direct reference to this discussion in this consideration, or is that a more general observation?

I'm inferring nothing, just making an observation, relevant to your comment, arising from experience in many threads, on various forums.

Quote
Well yes, of course, and I do believe that the steady state theory covered that one.  Problem being that we observe progression.  Progression being indicative of a beginning and an end, or a cycle.

Does that mean you reject the idea of an eternal cosmos, or an eternally inflating multiverse/universe?

Quote
No, not in the slightest, (edit: this would contravene the second law of thermodynamics) which is also a good point in reference to any potential symmetry of the situation.

That's an interesting thought; what would be the entropy of nothing?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #129 on: 10/09/2015 12:06:26 »
Quote
Well yes, of course, and I do believe that the steady state theory covered that one.  Problem being that we observe progression.  Progression being indicative of a beginning and an end, or a cycle.

Does that mean you reject the idea of an eternal cosmos, or an eternally inflating multiverse/universe?

Well... I do not out-rightly reject anything unless there is direct evidence to support doing so...

Eternal cosmos I think is unlikely in the face of what we observe everywhere concerning progression, and the fact of a more general consensus held by the world of physics itself.

I do not reject the idea of a multi-verse, or more accurately 'multi-verses', but feel that it is a pointless consideration in the face of our lack of understanding about this universe.

The current interpretation of observed data suggests very strongly that we are of an inflating universe.  Do I blindly accept this hypothesis?  In the face of the problems encountered by the current theories concerning unification, no I do not, but neither do I entirely discount it.  If the universe has a beginning and an end, then this inflation, for me, remains logical in the big freeze scenario, although this scenario does maintain a fuzzy interpretation of the second law.  Roger Penrose does have a theory that renders this inflation into a cyclic universe.

Roger Penrose's theory aside,  if the universe is a cyclic phenomenon, then this inflation could perhaps be considered illogical.  The Big Crunch or Bounce theory renders the second law fuzzy again and leaves us wondering how everything we see today can originate from a point, and retract to a point.

It's a mystery for sure Bill, but it does make for some damn fine thinking matter, aye ;)

That's an interesting thought; what would be the entropy of nothing?

Ok, so... If we 'can' consider nothing as a physical reality, all parameters of everything would be set to 0.   0 mass, 0 gravity, 0 time, 0 entropy.  At the cross over point, logically speaking 'everything' would be initiated as a progression up the scale from the point of 0.  At this stage of the path this logic is taking, it's the behaviour of bacteria that comes to my mind.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #130 on: 10/09/2015 12:19:04 »
If there is nothing how can anything be initiated? Cause and effect then break down. There has to be some energy around to initiate a big bang.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #131 on: 10/09/2015 12:33:28 »
If there is nothing how can anything be initiated? Cause and effect then break down. There has to be some energy around to initiate a big bang.

Well of course I'm really not entirely sure Jeff, but this is the mystery that surrounds the fact of the Big Bang theory... How did everything we see today originate from a point?

If we lower our expectations somewhat and ask the moment of the creation of our universe to follow a cyclic pattern of progression from a point of 0, could the famous Dirac equation that pops a particle out of a vacuum be significant?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #132 on: 10/09/2015 14:47:38 »
Quote from: Timey
If we lower our expectations somewhat and ask the moment of the creation of our universe to follow a cyclic pattern of progression from a point of 0, could the famous Dirac equation that pops a particle out of a vacuum be significant?

There are a few points I want to pick up, but no time at present, so just the last one.  I think the answer has to be "no" because the vacuum, in this context, can certainly not be classed as nothing.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #133 on: 10/09/2015 14:59:19 »
Cool... :) .  I'll look forward to hearing about these points later on, in the meantime, just a consideration...

What is it that defines a vacuum?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #134 on: 10/09/2015 20:18:39 »
Well...as far as I'm concerned this looking at the moment of creation as being in terms of the microscopic is all getting quite interesting!

A Vacuum State
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

In particular with regards to this statement:

"An outstanding requirement imposed on a potential Theory of Everything is that the energy of the quantum vacuum state must explain the physically observed cosmological constant."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

And with regards to this statement in link above:

"Why can't the zero-point energy of the vacuum be interpreted as a cosmological constant? What causes the discrepancies?"

Are we back to my proposed idea of the use of an inadequate time measurement in relation to the mathematical structure of the Planck scale?

However...I have realised, in the event of the moment of creation in microscopic terms, that IF a "perfect vacuum' where to exist, and I expected to find the energy to pop a particle out of this perfect vacuum - that I would be forced to look at the Casimir Effect.  If fluctuations were occurring in a perfect vacuum, ie: the nothing before creation, then time would have had to have started before a particle was created.

Leading me to wonder, due to the relationship between mass and time, if fluctuations such as the Casimir Effect have mass?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #135 on: 11/09/2015 00:26:29 »
Obviously “vacuum” has different meanings in different contexts, but here, as your last post indicates, we are dealing with the cosmological version, where it is widely accepted that there is energy, which must be something.

http://hetdex.org/dark_energy/what_is_it/vacuum_energy.php

“Today, physicists explain the cosmological constant as the vacuum energy of space.

In essence, this says that pairs of particles are constantly popping into existence throughout the universe. These "virtual pairs" consist of one particle with a negative charge and one with a positive charge. They exist for only a tiny fraction of a second before they collide and annihilate each other in a tiny burst of energy. This energy may be pushing outward on space itself, causing the universe to accelerate faster.”

Here’s another valuable look at the vacuum – or vacua. 

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/theories-and-vacua/ 

 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #136 on: 11/09/2015 00:41:44 »
Quote from: Timey
Eternal cosmos I think is unlikely in the face of what we observe everywhere concerning progression, and the fact of a more general consensus held by the world of physics itself.

I should have mentioned, in case you missed it elsewhere on this forum, I normally follow John Gribbin’s terminology with regard to the use of universe and cosmos.   

Cosmos = everything that exists, or can exist.
Universe = our (in principle) observable portion of spacetime and its contents.
universe = any other universe that may, or may not, exist.

Would that make any difference to your response?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #137 on: 11/09/2015 01:05:46 »
Ok, well thanks for that Bill.  The first link pretty much reiterated what the links I posted state...

The second is more interesting, especially with regards to this statement:

"So when we talk about empty space, we really mean space that is as empty as possible. In some sense it is empty, because it has no particles in it, not even particles of light (photons).  (Particles are long-lived and simply-behaved ripples in fields.) But in some sense it is not empty, because the electric field, W field, Higgs field etc. are always in it! The vacuum, or rather, “a” vacuum, isn’t specified just by saying “it’s empty space”, because not only do we have to say that there are no particles in it, we also have to specify what the fields in that empty space are actually doing… Terminology: we say that we have to specify “the configuration of the fields” in that vacuum."

The link also goes on to say that there is a train of thought that allows for 2 types of vacuum with regards to the Higgs Field,

If we can concede that in as much as the Big Bang of the Big Bang theory constitutes a 'special' situation... that the 'nothing' that was before the moment of creation also would constitute a special situation - could the possibility of a completely empty vacuum exist?

In the event that we are considering this as feasible, what are the properties of a normal vacuum that we would expect to see emerging first and why?

And given that the emerging fields necessary to initiate the appearance of these fleeting virtual pairs of particles can emerge from this 'special vacuum', what would happen if the positive and negative do not annihilate each other (the fact of them doing so is also not a proven fact of dark energy, just a supposition and not a thoroughly accepted one at that) ... What happens if there are another pair of virtual particles that appear in close vicinity and two positives or two negatives join up?

:), that's a lot if what ifs I realise, but we are rather in that sort of region with the subject matter... anyway, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

Quote from: Timey
Eternal cosmos I think is unlikely in the face of what we observe everywhere concerning progression, and the fact of a more general consensus held by the world of physics itself.

I should have mentioned, in case you missed it elsewhere on this forum, I normally follow John Gribbin’s terminology with regard to the use of universe and cosmos.   

Cosmos = everything that exists, or can exist.
Universe = our (in principle) observable portion of spacetime and its contents.
universe = any other universe that may, or may not, exist.

Would that make any difference to your response?

Yes, your definition of the terminology does change my answer.  Eternal cosmos, on the basis that this developed from a beginning and is in constant progression via a cyclic universe, yes I think this is a more likely scenario.
« Last Edit: 11/09/2015 01:31:09 by timey »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #138 on: 11/09/2015 03:39:35 »
Quote from: Timey
I do not reject the idea of a multi-verse, or more accurately 'multi-verses', but feel that it is a pointless consideration in the face of our lack of understanding about this universe.

Let’s not forget that the multiverse began as the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics.  It is a concept relating to QM and the peculiarity of quons*, rather than to cosmology.

*Having been reproached in another thread for using a non-mainstream term, I feel I should do my best to popularise it. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quon
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #139 on: 11/09/2015 10:32:49 »
Yes, you have a very valid point and it's not one that I have forgotten about.

For instance, IF we can look at the moment of creation as occurring in the microscopic region, and IF we can look at the nothing that came before the moment of creation as a reality that we can interpret as a 'perfect vacuum', but we cannot attribute the mechanics of this scenario with the emergence/beginning of time.  That we go on to find that despite the fact that time had to exist in order for quantum fluctuations to occur, we can find no cause for this scenario of emerging fields in this perfect vacuum state to account for the first moment of time...but everything else fits to a tee. Then we might say this signified the existence of our universe being part of a multi-verse.

Even if we could find a cause for time emerging from this perfect vacuum state... the potential that we may define this 'nothing' before creation as a reality of a perfect vacuum, would of course open up the possibility that other fluctuations in this perfect vacuum may have led to other universes that might be the same as ours, or similar, or perhaps even wildly different.  In this instance would these alternative universes be part of a multi-verse or would they be individually universes in their own right?

If we are to use the concept of multiple universes, or a multi-verse as an off-set to discovery about our universe, I think it IS the aspect of time and how it emerges in our universe that will be the telling factor.

*Having been reproached in another thread for using a non-mainstream term, I feel I should do my best to popularise it. ;)

Quantum objects: Quons, I like it! :)
« Last Edit: 11/09/2015 10:36:02 by timey »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #140 on: 11/09/2015 16:45:11 »
Quote from: Timey
I do not reject the idea of a multi-verse, or more accurately 'multi-verses', but feel that it is a pointless consideration in the face of our lack of understanding about this universe.

Let’s not forget that the multiverse began as the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics.  It is a concept relating to QM and the peculiarity of quons*, rather than to cosmology.

*Having been reproached in another thread for using a non-mainstream term, I feel I should do my best to popularise it. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quon
It's appropriate to post the definition of a non-mainstream term so that your reader won't have to ask you what it means and won't have to search for it.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #141 on: 11/09/2015 21:14:55 »
Quote from: Pete
It's appropriate to post the definition of a non-mainstream term so that your reader won't have to ask you what it means and won't have to search for it.

I did that first time I used it, then added it to Wiki to make it easy for others to find it. Also, I'm not the only one to use it on TNS.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #142 on: 11/09/2015 21:46:33 »
Quote from: Timey
Roger Penrose's theory aside,  if the universe is a cyclic phenomenon, then this inflation could perhaps be considered illogical.  The Big Crunch or Bounce theory renders the second law fuzzy again and leaves us wondering how everything we see today can originate from a point, and retract to a point.

The cyclic idea has been around for some time, and has been used to suggest that the fine tuning of our Universe is the result of "evolution" through countless (infinite?) universes.  Paul Davies poured some cold water on this a few years ago.

He argues that: “… any cyclic universe that allows physical structures and systems to propagate from one cycle to the next will not evade the degenerative influences of the second law of thermodynamics.  There will still be heat death"………. "One way to sidestep this dismal conclusion is to suppose that the physical conditions at the bounce are so extreme that no information about earlier cycles can get through to the next.  All preceding physical objects are destroyed, all influences annihilated.  In effect, the universe is reborn entirely from scratch”.

A universe from scratch?  Where would you find enough scratch? :)

Seriously, though, it would rule out evolution.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #143 on: 11/09/2015 22:15:57 »
We'll actually Bill, I have a theory that negates Paul's argument, but I don't really feel that this thread is the place to extrapolate this theory.  If you read from post 103 onwards on my thread "a theory of inverted time dilation", you will see how my theory of a cyclic universe copes with the second law of thermodynamics and why it would have the scratch to start again, although where it would get the scratch from to begin its first cycle is the mystery.

I really don't agree that a cyclic universe would rule out evolution.  If the present cycle of the universe takes x amount of billions of years to transpire from beginning to end, why would evolution be ruled out?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #144 on: 11/09/2015 22:25:09 »
Evolution would be ruled out if nothing could pass from one universe to the next, but as you say, PD might not be right.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #145 on: 11/09/2015 22:32:24 »
Ok, so if everything did pass from one cycle of the universe into the next, this argument is null and void?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #146 on: 11/09/2015 22:41:32 »
QM 'is' indicative of the possibility of a cyclic universe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

"Cyclic Model
More recent work has suggested the problem may be indirect evidence of a cyclic universe possibly as allowed by string theory. With every cycle of the universe (Big Bang then eventually a Big Crunch) taking about a trillion (1012) years, "the amount of matter and radiation in the universe is reset, but the cosmological constant is not. Instead, the cosmological constant gradually diminishes over many cycles to the small value observed today."[20] Critics respond that, as the authors acknowledge in their paper, the model "entails ... the same degree of tuning required in any cosmological model".[21]"
« Last Edit: 11/09/2015 22:51:32 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #147 on: 11/09/2015 22:57:49 »
It all depends upon the fate of the universe. If there is a big crunch then ALL the matter that originated from the big bang would need to recombine. If there is any loss of mass in one cycle there will be a cumulative loss of mass over many cycles. Therefore the universe would shrink with each successive bounce until it did not have enough mass to initiate a new cycle. If we look at a multiverse representation there needs to be a way that mass loss from bubble universes can be explained. There are a whole lot more issues to consider. I went through this thought process a few years ago.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #148 on: 11/09/2015 23:05:15 »
It all depends upon the fate of the universe. If there is a big crunch then ALL the matter that originated from the big bang would need to recombine. If there is any loss of mass in one cycle there will be a cumulative loss of mass over many cycles. Therefore the universe would shrink with each successive bounce until it did not have enough mass to initiate a new cycle. If we look at a multiverse representation there needs to be a way that mass loss from bubble universes can be explained. There are a whole lot more issues to consider. I went through this thought process a few years ago.

Why would there be any loss of mass in a bounce scenario?

What would drive this bounce scenario from a crunch into re-expanding.

Also... what negates the possibility of a universe producing more mass within its cycle?
« Last Edit: 11/09/2015 23:07:47 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #149 on: 11/09/2015 23:22:43 »
As I said. There are a whole lot of issues to consider.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #149 on: 11/09/2015 23:22:43 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums