Jump to content

what was there before Big Bang?


nernico
 Share

Recommended Posts

"...matter can neither be created nor destroyed...think about that..."

 

"What about matter/anti-matter annihilation?"

 

When matter and anti-matter come in contact they are annihilated, but they release a tremendous amount of energy in doing so. Matter and anti-matter are not destroyed, they are converted into energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was nothing before the big bang (as far as we know), not even time, and because time did not exist prior to the universe, the universe technically has always existed. There was nothing to count seconds before the universe, so it's technically infinite or at least undefined.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was nothing before the big bang (as far as we know), not even time, and because time did not exist prior to the universe, the universe technically has always existed. There was nothing to count seconds before the universe, so it's technically infinite or at least undefined.

 

You cannot say there was nothing before the big bang, since we know nothing about it. There could have been anything before the big bang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

zorro,

 

 

These are along my thoughts on the subject, but good luck getting anybody to listen.

 

The singularity was before the BB. We can break it down that far, but how does a singularity incite action? If there was something else, then it wouldn't be a singularity now would it?

 

You are soooo right. The Psudo Sciences will dismiss this and go on to a newer song and dance to keep Creationist back even if there is no basis at all for their proposed way to go to everything from nothing.

 

BTW, there must have been trillions of Universes prior to the Big Bang according to miltiverse theory.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was nothing before the big bang (as far as we know), not even time, and because time did not exist prior to the universe, the universe technically has always existed. There was nothing to count seconds before the universe, so it's technically infinite or at least undefined.

 

That is a theory known as "A universe from Nothing" about a universe that was created when the big bang occurred, the creation operator

 

was activated which have created all the matter the universe started with .. Creation operator in Quantum theory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a theory known as "A universe from Nothing" about a universe that was created when the big bang occurred, the creation operator

 

was activated which have created all the matter the universe started with .. Creation operator in Quantum theory

 

If scientists know nothing about what existed before the Big Bang, then it is NOT correct to assume the universe came from nothing. "Nothing" is a very poor term to use, BTW, but it keeps getting repeated above. It is an idiotic term to use in cosmology. The universe as we know it originated with the Big Bang, but the condition(s) that allowed a Big Bang to occur was not "nothing" but rather a profound potential.

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a theory known as "A universe from Nothing" about a universe that was created when the big bang occurred, the creation operator

 

was activated which have created all the matter the universe started with .. Creation operator in Quantum theory

 

But perhaps the universe itself is a single thing, thus if any part of it has formed, all of it has to have formed.

In any case, the only real thing scientists know for certain about the early universe is that it appears to become hotter and denser as we rewind the cosmic video-camera.

 

You cannot say there was nothing before the big bang, since we know nothing about it. There could have been anything before the big bang.

 

It's true that there could have been something before the big bang, but by definition, there could not have been anything before the creation of the universe, which is what we label the big bang as not knowing of where else the universe could have came from.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...by definition, there could not have been anything before the creation of the universe...."

 

That is a new definition to me. Can anyone give us a more precise definition of the universe? I don't believe any reputable scientists would agree with your words quoted above. The Big Bang says nothing about the conditions before it. That means anything could have existed before the creation of our universe, even another universe. Why can one universe not be created on top of a previous universe?

 

Maybe another Big Bang will occur in our neighborhood. Or there could be another Big Bang that occurred so far away we haven't seen it yet, not until we are destroyed by it.

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the only real thing scientists know for certain about the early universe is that it appears to become hotter and denser as we rewind the cosmic video-camera.

I question whether this statement is accurate also. Seems to me scientists know much more than that, although I'm not sure the use of the word 'certain' is appropriate in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I question whether this statement is accurate also. Seems to me scientists know much more than that, although I'm not sure the use of the word 'certain' is appropriate in any case.

 

No, it's, pretty certain. As they look at the trajectories of galaxies and use equations to map out where they were at earlier times, the universe appears denser and hotter, and there's no reason to doubt that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's, pretty certain. As they look at the trajectories of galaxies and use equations to map out where they were at earlier times, the universe appears denser and hotter, and there's no reason to doubt that.

The question of how 'certain' you can know about something that happened 14 billion years ago aside, my primary issue with your statement was the assertion that "the only real thing scientists know for certain about the early universe is that it appears to become hotter and denser". Are you suggesting all of the other descriptions of what was happening in the early universe are false, or that there is zero doubt about the 'hotter and denser' issue and some non-zero doubt about everything else?

 

Early universe

 

Cosmic History

After cosmic inflation ends, the universe is filled with a quark–gluon plasma. From this point onwards the physics of the early universe is better understood, and less speculative.

 

[edit] Supersymmetry breaking

If supersymmetry is a property of our universe, then it must be broken at an energy that is no lower than 1 TeV, the electroweak symmetry scale. The masses of particles and their superpartners would then no longer be equal, which could explain why no superpartners of known particles have ever been observed.

 

[edit] Quark epoch

Between 10–12 seconds and 10–6 seconds after the Big Bang

Main article: Quark epoch

 

In electroweak symmetry breaking, at the end of the electroweak epoch, all the fundamental particles are believed to acquire a mass via the Higgs mechanism in which the Higgs boson acquires a vacuum expectation value. The fundamental interactions of gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong interaction and the weak interaction have now taken their present forms, but the temperature of the universe is still too high to allow quarks to bind together to form hadrons.

 

[edit] Hadron epoch

Between 10–6 seconds and 1 second after the Big Bang

Main article: Hadron epoch

 

...

 

[edit] Lepton epoch

Between 1 second and 10 seconds after the Big Bang

Main article: Lepton epoch

 

...

 

[edit] Photon epoch

Between 10 seconds and 380,000 years after the Big Bang

Main article: Photon epoch

 

...

 

[edit] Nucleosynthesis

Between 3 minutes and 20 minutes after the Big Bang[5]

...

 

[edit] Matter domination: 70,000 years

 

...

 

[edit] Recombination: ca 377,000 years

 

...

 

[edit] Dark ages

 

...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, it's a theory, but it's supported by many theories .. Quantum theory, Singularity, String Theory, and Super Symmetry which tell us that

all matter in the universe sums up to Zero, since every matter has an anti-matter, where I think that the creation operator in quantum theory takes

energy and should create the exact amount of matters opposed by anti-matters, in order to preserve the symmetry, Now you can imagine that if

everything was taken into a single point at the universe, all matters and anti-matters will collide back into energy, and back to the Zero.

 

I've learned all of that from a talk given by Lawrence Krauss

 

You are soooo right. The Psudo Sciences will dismiss this and go on to a newer song and dance to keep Creationist back even if there is no basis at all for their proposed way to go to everything from nothing.

 

BTW, there must have been trillions of Universes prior to the Big Bang according to miltiverse theory.

 

1. do you really know what 'everything' and 'nothing' really means in "everything from nothing", hint: it's related to matter

 

2. Multiverse theory, String theory, .. they are theories that discuss the probability space of a quantum state (not real state) in the future (not the past)

 

There is only 1 universe, that was created from a specific amount of energy from the big bang

.. the next moment you think they become more, that even break the principle of Energy Preservation

Edited by khaled
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of how 'certain' you can know about something that happened 14 billion years ago aside, my primary issue with your statement was the assertion that "the only real thing scientists know for certain about the early universe is that it appears to become hotter and denser". Are you suggesting all of the other descriptions of what was happening in the early universe are false, or that there is zero doubt about the 'hotter and denser' issue and some non-zero doubt about everything else?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Big_Bang

 

I don't think your getting it. It doesn't matter what you want to think, our calculations show that as you go backwards in time, the universe appears to be hotter and denser. I don't know if there was an infinitely dense point involved or if the universe is infinitely large, but I can tell you our calculations show a hotter, denser universe earlier in time. It's not even just the calculations, it's also objects billions of light years away.

Maybe there was a big bang, maybe there wasn't, I don't know for sure, all we know is the universe as far as we can see appears hotter and denser further back in time, and that we have found a mysterious background radiation that is otherwise explainable.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think your getting it. It doesn't matter what you want to think, our calculations show that as you go backwards in time, the universe appears to be hotter and denser. I don't know if there was an infinitely dense point involved or if the universe is infinitely large, but I can tell you our calculations show a hotter, denser universe earlier in time. It's not even just the calculations, it's also objects billions of light years away.

Maybe there was a big bang, maybe there wasn't, I don't know for sure, all we know is the universe as far as we can see appears hotter and denser further back in time, and that we have found a mysterious background radiation that is otherwise explainable.

What I'm not getting is an answer to my question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm not getting is an answer to my question.

 

What I'm not getting is my posts read. I didn't say we confirmed any particular theory using that evidence, I said the universe appears to be hotter and denser as we go back in time. What's so hard to understood and about that? We have evidence that this is true, we don't have direct evidence there was a singularity, just that millions of years ago the universe was hotter and denser, and that tends to lead to the assumption of a singularity.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

First of all, it's a theory, but it's supported by many theories ..Quantum theory, Singularity, String Theory, and Super Symmetry which tell us that

 

all matter in the universe sums up to Zero, since every matter has ananti-matter, where I think that the creation operator in quantum theory takes

 

energy and should create the exact amount of matters opposed byanti-matters, in order to preserve the symmetry, Now you can imagine that if

 

everything was taken into a single point at the universe, all mattersand anti-matters will collide back into energy, and back to the Zero.

 

I've learned all of that from a talk given by Lawrence Krauss

Mr. Krauss is an unreliable theorist and an atheist with an ax to grind.

 

http://www.slate.com...f_anything.html

Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case WesternReserve University, has a reputation for shooting down pseudoscience. Heopposed the teaching of intelligentdesign on The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. He penned an essayfor the New York Times that dissedPresident Bush's proposal for a manned Mars mission. Yet in his latest book, Hiding in theMirror, Krauss turns on his own—by taking on string theory, theleading edge of theoretical physics. Krauss is probably right that stringtheory is a threat to science, but his book proves he's too late to stop it.

 

There is no anti-matter, anti-universe, anti-energy. They are all figments of the psudosciences theoretic religionists , IMHO. You can't destroy matter or energy so extrapolating back to before the Big Bang for this Universe you get to nothing. Then, majestically out the open space, it explodes, makes all matter and energy, it's rules then set on its way and still travels making the Cosmos, and it's species.

 

1. do youreally know what 'everything' and 'nothing' really means in "everythingfrom nothing", hint: it's related to matter

Yes. In this context, "everything" is all matter, energy, rules, entropy ….. in this Universe. "Nothing"is a theoretical extrapolation back to time zero an instant before the Big Bang when nothing existed of this universe just a hole in space awaiting a command.

 

2.Multiverse theory, String theory, .. they are theories that discuss theprobability space of a quantum state (not real state) in the future (not thepast)

String theory is all but debunked now. The all serve to define the pieces of the atom and must be true at the Big Bang past this time and on to the end. These theories have to pass thetests of the extremely hot Big Bang time as well as the cold of dark matter. Wearen't there yet.

 

There isonly 1 universe, that was created from a specific amount of energy from the bigbang .. the next moment you think they become more, that even break the principle of Energy Preservation.

Very true, however there were, are and future, many Universes with many Big Bangs and we have yet to find any yet.

Edited by zorro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exact text ch.10 page 348 say's " The initial singularity in the universe. The expansion of the universe is in many ways similar to the collapse of a star, except that the sense of time is reversed.We shall show in this chapter that the conditions of theorems 2 and 3 seem to be satisfied, indicating that there was a singularity at the beginning of the present expansion phase of the universe."

 

...

 

Without space-time or matter or anything but the singularity one would think it would have no choice but to be stable.

 

 

I'll wait for your rebuttle.

 

 

 

 

One more time.

 

Within the context of general relativity, there are NO singular points in spacetime (aka the universe). Therefore the statemetn that "the universe began as a singularity" is meaningless.

 

The singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking show that it is impossible to indefinitely continue timelike geodesics into the past. That is the sense in which there is no "before" the big bang.

 

Quite a few people who write popularizations, including physicists who one would think should know better, do not understand this point. Perhaps they too ought read the original papers by Hawking and Penrose or the book by Hawking and Ellis, The large scale structure of space time and learn what the singularity theorems actually say.

 

I have no interest in continuing to rebut each and every over-simplification or popularization that you care to drag out. As I have told you there are a lot of misconceptions, over-simplifications, and downright erroneous statements that have been publlished. The nature of the singularity theorems is precisely as I have stated. The usual interpretation is that general relativityis inadequate to describe the earliest moments of the universe, not that the "universe began as a singularity". Given the apparent breakdown of our best available theories, no one has a clue what happened at t=0. No one includes the people who wrote the books that you are reading. Unfoertunately the accurate answer, "I don't know" doesn't sell books.

Edited by DrRocket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm not getting is my posts read. I didn't say we confirmed any particular theory using that evidence, I said the universe appears to be hotter and denser as we go back in time. What's so hard to understood and about that? We have evidence that this is true, we don't have direct evidence there was a singularity, just that millions of years ago the universe was hotter and denser, and that tends to lead to the assumption of a singularity.

Is it true that the only thing scientists know for certain about the early universe is that it was hotter and denser than it is now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it true that the only thing scientists know for certain about the early universe is that it was hotter and denser than it is now?

 

That is what scientists agree with, yes.

However, there is no known way to know for certain what there was at the creation or even a few seconds after, they have to extrapolate that the universe becomes that much hotter and denser up to that point based on the equations they use to model the current relationship between energies and distances over time.

We don't know that a quark gluon plasma was there, but if that pattern of increasing density and temperature continued all the way up to that early in the universe, we calculate the temperature would be hotter, and at that hot of a temperature quark-gluon plasma can form. We haven't actually observed that.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

zorro, this stops now. This is a science forum, not an 'in my own opinion' forum. This particular forum is also not a place to peddle your own hypotheses about creation. Stick to discussing mainstream science rather than speculation based on your own opinions (as opposed to evidence) and stop hijacking threads or you will find your self suspended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Krauss is an unreliable theorist and an atheist with an ax to grind.

 

http://www.slate.com...f_anything.html

Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case WesternReserve University, has a reputation for shooting down pseudoscience. Heopposed the teaching of intelligentdesign on The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. He penned an essayfor the New York Times that dissedPresident Bush's proposal for a manned Mars mission. Yet in his latest book, Hiding in theMirror, Krauss turns on his own—by taking on string theory, theleading edge of theoretical physics. Krauss is probably right that stringtheory is a threat to science, but his book proves he's too late to stop it.

 

Zorro, I'm a muslim person by the way, I'm not against anything or against how one beliefs should be like, but in this place we have

 

respect and science. Those scientists don't come up with speculations, they come with equations, models, systems that built on scientific

 

roots, saying things such as "unreliable" is meaningless, Because in science we have theory, proof, soundness, rigorousness, and analysis

 

.. I won't look to your beliefs, your vision for the future, or your speculations .. I will look to theory you can proof

 

.. so if you don't like his theory, study mathematics and physics well and come up with a better theory

 

and if you have a difficulty in understanding something, the experts here will help you

 

------------

 

"Everything from Nothing" means "All matter from No matter", it says that before the big bang there was Zero Matter, and alot of energy

 

.. and somehow the creation operator was activated, which created all the matter in this universe .. and if you see things from the

 

universe age, you will see that the universe was born at time Zero

Edited by khaled
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

zorro, this stops now. This is a science forum, not an 'in my own opinion' forum. This particular forum is also not a place to peddle your own hypotheses about creation. Stick to discussing mainstream science rather than speculation based on your own opinions (as opposed to evidence) and stop hijacking threads or you will find your self suspended.

 

Sorry, but contemporary cosmology and particle physics have both stepped off the 'deep end' and it has led to a serious loss of credibility with observers both within and outside of the realm of academia.

 

There are serious flaws within those standard models, not so much with questionable data but with the interpretation of that information. Academia seems to have thrown logic and many of the laws of physics out the window, and it did so at the expense of its own credibility. The laws of physics seem to break down at singularity for a very good reason - they are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.

 

This is a rather simple axiom, logically self-evident since any who might dissent must believe in things that don't exist. Existence in the absence of change is possible, change in the absence of existence is not. The fact that existence is required in order for change to occur explicitly means cause and effect is a function of (derived from) the phenomenon of existence - NOT the reverse

 

Existence is not temporal in nature - the existence of the cosmos was not the result of cause and effect. Everything in the cosmos may constantly change, but that same everything has always existed in one form or another. If the Universe is "everything that exists", and if, as some cosmologists predict, it is comprised of a finite amount of substance expanding into an unbounded volume, then the most popular cosmological model would certainly have suffered an entropy death an eternity ago. Even a cyclical Big Bang scenario wouldn't save a finite cosmos. If light is comprised of massless photons which could not be retrieved by the forces of gravity, then unless the Universe is entirely coated with a layer of black holes like a chocolate dipped ice cream cone, each "Big Crunch" would still have been plagued by an energy leak that would lead to a much slower - but ultimately inevitable - entropy death conclusion.

 

The phenomenon of existence is founded upon a principle, not a process or event:

Contemporary Science vs. Common Sense

.

Edited by THoR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not cosmology and particle physics that have stepped off the 'deep end'. It is people, like you, who don't have a very clear understanding of cosmological theory, that are acting like the sky is falling.

 

It is NOT a finite amount of substance expanding into an unbounded volume. That is not part of any viable big bang model. I suggest you do some reading and inform yourself. Or ask certain members of this forum, a lot of them are willing to explain the details of cosmological theory to you, as long as you don't come with a lot of pre-conceived notions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not cosmology and particle physics that have stepped off the 'deep end'. It is people, like you, who don't have a very clear understanding of cosmological theory, that are acting like the sky is falling.

 

It is NOT a finite amount of substance expanding into an unbounded volume. That is not part of any viable big bang model. I suggest you do some reading and inform yourself. Or ask certain members of this forum, a lot of them are willing to explain the details of cosmological theory to you, as long as you don't come with a lot of pre-conceived notions.

I have done some reading. 40 years worth and it depends on whose version you wish to quote - there are all flavors.

Cite me ANY BB model that envisions an INfinite amount of material or an INfinite volume in the Universe.

They cite the expansion model as proof of the expansion model.

It reeks of self serving reverse engineering.

Do YOUR homework. And think for yourself instead of parroting the conventional lore.

It wasn't that long ago that scholars of your caliber were debating over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Obviously you have no specifics to discuss, so I guess a general denegration is the best you could do.

If the known universe - no, lets say a volume of the known universe taken to a power of septemdecillion - were to expand by only a billionth of a micron each billion eons, the universe would have suffered entrophy death an eternity ago. Existence didn't begin. It is not a function of cause and effect.

Edited by THoR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.