[Thinklots (OP)]

Anything that we observe in the Cosmos had a Prerequisite. Stars, galaxies, black holes, and planets require something to exist before they could exist. Even the Big Bang required a singularity of immense energy to allow it to bang. So let's start there - what would be needed to allow a singularty of immense energy and density to exist? This can also answer the question, "What was before the Big Bang?" We will use a few abstract ideas to answer, and the first step is to define "NOTHING". Nothing means no laws, no mathmatics, no potential, no future and no past. NOTHING. If there was truly ever NOTHING, there would never be anything. So what do we KNOW would be needed to make a Big Bang? The answers we come up with will likely be one or more things that have Prerequisites of their own, or HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED. First, there was the potential for a Big Bang to occur. Second, we know that the cosmos had a FUTURE prior to the Big Bang. After these two things, we come to a few "either/or" elements that can help us to understand this future and potential. The potential for a Big Bang requires that mathmatics either always existed, or came into existence at the time of the Big Bang. It makes much more sense to think mathmatics, as well as the laws and rules that govern string theory, quantum physics, and chemistry were prerequisites of the Big Bang. When you find something that does not have a clear prerequisite, then it can be assumed that it always existed in some form or another. So before the Big Bang, there existed all that was required for a Big Bang to occur that would result in this universe existing, and possibly all the other universes in the multiverse. To go back farther, we would need to think of prerequisites for string theory, quantum physics, and mathmatics. The simple explaination is usually the right one. Some magical super being that makes universes as a hobby? Or a small group of things that always existed, and allow for what we see now to have come into existence - now, and perhaps countless times before.

[Bogie_smiles]

You are going down a familiar path. The conclusions you reach will be different from those reached by others because our personal experiences, studies, connections, preferences, etc. will shape the path that we ourselves see unfolding. It sounds like you have a cosmological model preference for string theory.

[Thinklots (OP)]

That is true that what we read influences the conclusions we come to. I came to my conclusions based on deep thinking about NOTHING. True nothing is kind of like the null set. There is no thought, no time, no eventuality, and no quarks. A history is SOMETHING, so no past and no future. For something to exist, there had to be something capable of allowing it. For my mind it is easier to envision a few things that always existed then it is to consider true nothing turning into something - with no laws, mathmatics, rules, or catalyst of any kind. 

[Bogie_smiles]

Agreed. There seem to be three main explanations for the existence of the universe. "God did it", which is not recognized by the Scientific Method, "Something from nothing", to which there is a set of people who believe that is an impossibility, and "Always existed", which logic seems to point to for some of us.

[Bill S]

"Always existed",

Do you mean that the Universe always existed, or that there is a multiverse/cosmos/bouncing universe beyond our Universe?

[Bogie_smiles]

[quote author=Bill S link=topic=72627.msg536908#msg536908 date=1521642889]

"Always existed",

Do you mean that the Universe always existed, or that there is a multiverse/cosmos/bouncing universe beyond our Universe?

I can’t speak for the originator, Thinklots, and he/she will hopefully continue to maintain this thread, and respond to our comments and questions. Since we both used the phrase “always existed” , forgive me for responding to your post if the question was directed to Thinklots. “Always existed”, when invoked in regard to my response to Thinklots was a reference to the universe, without regard to the particulars that distinguish between a multiverse/cosmos/bouncing universe beyond our universe. There is just one universe according to the definition of the word, and so it encompasses all possibilities.

[Thinklots (OP)]

Do you mean that the Universe always existed, or that there is a multiverse/cosmos/bouncing universe beyond our Universe?

The universe we inhabit did not always exist, but the preconditions required to allow it to exist had to already be in place. That means that there was "SOMETHING" before the Big Bang. Some condition existed that allowed sub-atomic particles to pop into existence, vanish, then appear in a different place (as per quantum physics). So even though space time and the fabric of space we occupy did not exist before the Big Bang (other instances may have preceeded our universe), SOMETHING existed that allowed the possibility for a universe to spawn. Most likely what existed was a condition of reality that worked by some set of laws, using some combination of mathmatics, string theory, and quantum mechanics to make it possible for all that exists now to exist. The key point is that there was always SOMETHING.     

[Colin2B]

The real problem with discussion of prerequisites is that they don’t solve any big bang mystery. Big bang theory is about the process which happened after the start, so you are really thinking pre-big bang. As has been said, there are a lot of contenders for that including ‘there was nothing’ - including no prerequisites. I suspect we will never have any idea because all the experiments we can perform use existing ‘prerequisites’ .

PS I changed your subject to a question as we ask in forum rules for all threads in this section to be a question.

[Thinklots (OP)]

The real problem with discussion of prerequisites is that they don’t solve any big bang mystery.

Discussion of prerequisites is the only thing we have that can shed light on the mystery of the Big Bang. What part of the Big Bang is mysterious? The answer is what existed prior to the Big Bang. Super computers and colliders have reproduced expansion very nicely. We can use planct time to see the Big Bang in great detail. So this entire thread is to discuss what existed prior to the Big Bang, allowing it to happen. THAT is the mystery of the Big Bang.

As has been said, there are a lot of contenders for that including ‘there was nothing’ - including no prerequisites.

Just wanted to add that to many of us there are no other "contenders". You rule out "there was nothing" once you clarify what "NOTHING" truly means - as was done in this discussion.
I truly was not looking for a debate. And it is far more productive to a discussion to post your own personal belief and support it - rather than to simply discredit other persons offerings.
 

I suspect we will never have any idea because all the experiments we can perform use existing ‘prerequisites’

Of couse they use existing prerequisites. This discussion was highlighting existing prerequisites that were needed for a Big Bang to occur, and thus make the assertion that these prerequisites already existed - eliminating the possiblity that there was NOTHING prior to the Big Bang. 

[Colin2B]

I truly was not looking for a debate. And it is far more productive to a discussion to post your own personal belief and support it - rather than to simply discredit other persons offerings.

OK, in that case this is best moved to new theories which gives scope for a full description of your hypothesis.

[andreasva]

what would be needed to allow a singularty of immense energy and density to exist?

Time

"What was before the Big Bang?"

Potential

So what do we KNOW would be needed to make a Big Bang?

Energy Released

[Thinklots (OP)]

what would be needed to allow a singularty of immense energy and density to exist?
Time

Most Astrophysicists say that time began at the moment of the Big Bang. So you assert that time existed prior to the Big Bang - therefore something was already in existence prior to the Big Bang. Time = SOMETHING. So thank you for agreement that the Big Bang had prerequisites. The existence of time counts as a prerequisite.
You also added Potential as a prerequisite, which I also stated previously in this thread.

The potential for a Big Bang requires that mathmatics either always existed, or came into existence at the time of the Big Bang.

Hmm... the last one that says to have a Big Bang you need

Energy Released

must be speaking of energy contained in the singularity. The energy release *IS* the Big Bang, resulting in inflation and the start of space time (as per Einstein). I do believe that the singularity was the prerequisite of the energy release that occured during the Big Bang. This discussion was more centered on the prerequisites of the singularity. Time was listed as one of those prerequisites, in answer to the question "What would be needed to allow a singularty of immense energy and density to exist?"

Time

.
I would love read more from andreasva that elaborates on the existence of TIME prior to the Big Bang. Time counts from a point - backwards and forwards. Otherwise we would have no way to quantify it's passing. The Big Bang actually makes a fine point for us humans to track time, i.e. "One Billion Years Prior To The Big Bang". So then we are left to consider how does Time incorperate the laws of physics, mathmatics, ect... Are they prerequisites of Time?, or is Time the prerequisite of everything? Of course that would mean that there was no begining - and that Time always existed. 

[andreasva]

I really should be working today...  but...

I would love read more from andreasva that elaborates on the existence of TIME prior to the Big Bang.

be careful what you wish for...

space is infinite, and not a part of the puzzle

space-time = time-energy

mass-energy is the inverse of time-energy

mass-energy density is depleting, while time-energy density is increasing

We are neither expanding, or accelerating.

Mass-energy converts directly to time-energy, and vice versa, because energy is energy.

potential is building right now, as mass-energy converts to time-energy

when me=0, te=1, KABOOM!

My guess is, right around the time all mass is gathered into a single black-hole, and it evaporates. 

Division by 0 is illegal you know....   

In all honesty though, I can't decide if te=me is the trigger.  The universe doesn't do equal too well either.  It hates it actually.

I lean more towards te=me, but I liked the division by 0 reference, so I threw it in there anyway.  It will annoy the hell out of you in coding, or spreadsheets.   

I think we may recycle, at a little less than we were before.

Like I said, be careful what you wish for...   

[Bored chemist]

So let's start there - what would be needed to allow a singularty of immense energy and density to exist?

We don't really know.
Apart from anything else, whatever it was didn't happen in this Universe.
So we don't know what the laws of physics which the "prerequisite" would have to obey.

There is absolutely no way for you to rule out the idea that the big bang happened because a mouse farted, and that's what one expects to happen in the pre-big-bang universe.

[andreasva]

We don't really know.

We don't really know...  now.

We will know.  It's inevitable. 

[Thinklots (OP)]

Quote from: Thinklots on Today at 10:21:44
I truly was not looking for a debate. And it is far more productive to a discussion to post your own personal belief and support it - rather than to simply discredit other persons offerings.
OK, in that case this is best moved to new theories which gives scope for a full description of your hypothesis.

This was 100% a discussion about Cosmology. It focuses on what we can deduce existed prior to the Big Bang, based on how the Big Bang behaved. Similar would be to deduce that a person had a telescope as a prerequisite to making a detailed map of  the moons around Jupiter - this discussion centers on what was needed to make a singularity capable of starting the Big Bang. This is not a "New Theory", simply an effort to consider way for the Big Bang to have occured *AND* to acknowledge the existence of SOMETHING eternal (NOT A GOD!) prior to the Big Bang occuring.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html [nofollow]
Moving my post was kinda uncool Colin2B. I wish you would have added a post saying... "I Colin2B believe that prior to the Big Bang, it was like this____. I think this is most likely true because _____ and please read this article at (https://Colin2B.org/believes.html [nofollow]) to understand why I think this is most likely true.
Then we are having a discussion about Cosmology... that belongs where I originally posted it.

[Thinklots (OP)]

We don't really know.
Apart from anything else, whatever it was didn't happen in this Universe.
So we don't know what the laws of physics which the "prerequisite" would have to obey.

Thank you and I respect your opinion. I must ask though... why even consider that different laws of physics could even exist? We have never seen any. Let's assume that the laws of physics we have are multi-universal until proven otherwise. It certainly makes thing a lot easier and it allows super computers to make models of the Big Bang that work pretty well. Remember that Einstein did not want to believe that Black Holes existed, even though the math said they should. Always follow the math.   

[Thinklots (OP)]

Like I said, be careful what you wish for...   

THANK YOU!! Nice! I will cross reference and find info that mirrors your assertion so I better understand it - then I will post a comment about it. For now my brain is still chewing and I need to let the Cosmology meal you shared with me digest fully.

[Bored chemist]

hy even consider that different laws of physics could even exist? We have never seen any. Let's assume that the laws of physics we have are multi-universal until proven otherwise.

We know that, as we currently understand them, the laws of physics don't work immediately after the big bang.
It makes no real sense to assume they would work before or during it.

[Bogie_smiles]

Well, this thread is off with a bang, lol.

The universe we inhabit did not always exist, but the preconditions required to allow it to exist had to already be in place.

I’m seeking clarification about the definition of the word universe. Do you agree that, “Universe” encompasses all there is, and therefore the universe could be any one of many possible scenarios, i.e., do you agree that there is one universe, regardless of the various possible characteristics it might have?

That means that there was "SOMETHING" before the Big Bang. Some condition existed that allowed sub-atomic particles to pop into existence, vanish, then appear in a different place (as per quantum physics). So even though space time and the fabric of space we occupy did not exist before the Big Bang (other instances may have preceded our universe), SOMETHING existed that allowed the possibility for a universe to spawn. Most likely what existed was a condition of reality that worked by some set of laws, using some combination of mathematics, string theory, and quantum mechanics to make it possible for all that exists now to exist. The key point is that there was always SOMETHING.     

I wholeheartedly support your premise of “Something” before the Big Bang. My question is why do you presume that there was a time when our local space did not exist. Why wouldn’t space be infinite and have always existed, as one of the preconditions? Infinite space could be hosting an ongoing and perpetual process. Proposing some sequence of states, and changes in states, that finally result in our current observable universe, and everything going on beyond it that is not observable, is simply an exercise in logic, and logic is open for discussion.