Before the BB there was nothing no time, space, matter, energy? can nothing exsist any where?

Before the BB there was nothing no time, space, matter, energy?

Good question. No one knows:) The problem is that signals can't really propogate across the singularity that was the big bang, and we don't even understand the big bang itself that well. It is interesting to think about.

can nothing exsist any where?

clarify this?

Nonsensical.

How can you say "before" there was no "time"?

No time = no before = nonsensical question.

Nonsensical.

How can you say "before" there was no "time"?

No time = no before = nonsensical question.

It is a perfectly reasonable question that people study seriously---fishtale has just phrased it in an akward manner.

Sorry but I guess I misunderstand the question altogether.

People study the conditions before the big bang? What? Do you mean the initial state and expansion?

Yes my questions are phrased rather awkwardly, my skatterbrain.

I guess it starts with the theory that space is expanding, the usual answer
to what is it expanding into is (it is beyond science) so why ask.
It is the same if one asks is there an edge/end to the universe, science
gets around this question with words like infinite but bounded.
So i am left thinking if the universe is expanding it must be expanding into
(some thing) not (nothing) as nothing in my definition is the absence of
every thing, which include dimensions.
This brings me to ask, can there be (nothing) is it even possible?

People study the conditions before the big bang? What? Do you mean the initial state and expansion?

Yeah. You can study it if a certain type of gravitational wave propogates across the singularity, but it's not clear (to me at least) if this is possible.

There is a certain class of bouncing cosmologies, which people also study. Check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic.

This brings me to ask, can there be (nothing) is it even possible?

It depends on what you mean. In some sense, your questions are philosophical. The easiest answer is that of Fading Captain---the universe is everything, so it doesn't make sense to talk about "outside the universe".

It depends on what you mean. In some sense, your questions are philosophical. The easiest answer is that of Fading Captain---the universe is everything, so it doesn't make sense to talk about "outside the universe".

I dont think it is philosophical, if one accepts the universe is expanding, then
one must accept that it has some thing to expand into, the theory requires it.

The universe is every thing, is a cop out answer but, scientists do not want
to justify their theory of expanding space, as there can only be two answers,
either it is expanding into (some thing) or (nothing), without a theory of what
they (are) expanding space is nonsense.

I dont think it is philosophical, if one accepts the universe is expanding, then
one must accept that it has some thing to expand into, the theory requires it.

Not really. One cannot leave the universe. The "theory" doesn't require anything. Do you know the "theory"?

The universe is every thing, is a cop out answer but, scientists do not want
to justify their theory of expanding space, as there can only be two answers,
either it is expanding into (some thing) or (nothing), without a theory of what
they (are) expanding space is nonsense.

Oh boy here we go.

The equations tell us that the space-time on which we live is expanding. Outside of that there's not a whole lot we can gather.

These are interesting topics, but they do not fall under the subject of physics.

Why is it not physics? expanding space is the mainstream theory, for it to
be valid it must have some thing pre existant to expand into, that is what
scientists do not like as it means the BB was not the initial state.

expanding space is the mainstream theory, for it to
be valid it must have some thing pre existant to expand into,

No, this is not correct.

No, this is not correct.


So it is expanding into nothing?

Before the BB there was nothing no time, space, matter, energy? can nothing exsist any where?

At present there is no evidence that an absence of everything (i.e. 'nothing') actually exists. What that would imply is that outside the boundaries of our universe there is 'something'. What that something is anybody's guess. M-theory predicts dimensions, other branes, etc. Various inflationary theories predict some rather bizarre structure. I don't think there is any theory that utilizes 'nothing'.

So it is expanding into nothing?

Nothing implies the existence of something. So, the question is a bit meaningless unless you phrase it in some larger structure. If you want a multiverse or something (i.e. Mtheory, which Cat was talking about), then we can talk. But the vanilla cosmological models don't need any larger structure to be consistent.

At present there is no evidence that an absence of everything (i.e. 'nothing') actually exists. What that would imply is that outside the boundaries of our universe there is 'something'. What that something is anybody's guess. M-theory predicts dimensions, other branes, etc. Various inflationary theories predict some rather bizarre structure. I don't think there is any theory that utilizes 'nothing'.

Ok, so M theory predicts the existence of some thing outside the universe,
to my way of thinking that is a step forwards, why bizarre structure?
Is it not just a way of keeping inflation/BB theory alive rather than admit to
pre existing space?

Is it not just a way of keeping inflation/BB theory alive rather than admit to pre existing space?

No, it's a way to understand (loosely) why and how inflation occured, as well as explain what happened before inflation.

why bizarre structure?

Well its kind of like a sea of quantum-gravity-ish bubbles that lack polarized behaviors. IMO, thats bizarre.


Is it not just a way of keeping inflation/BB theory alive rather than admit to
pre existing space?

I don't understand the question.

That's the question that gets me every time. When I want to just curl up and die.

Everything comes from something and has an origin, so how the fuck did the world, the universe and everything we know come into existence?

It's a mindfuck.

That's the question that gets me every time. When I want to just curl up and die.

Everything comes from something and has an origin, so how the fuck did the world, the universe and everything we know come into existence?

It's a mindfuck.

Maybe it is a Mf, but i am trying to under stand how the scientists accept the idea/theory of a singularity expanding into every thing we know, ok we can touch matter and experiment with energy, but AFAIK space just is,
Red shift data etc seems to confirm that non gravitationally bound bodies
are getting further apart, other theories state that C is a limit to the rate
bodies can travel, to avoid +c motion space must be expanding.
For space to expand it must cause a change of state from (no space) to
space, the only way i can see avoid this weirdness is to accept that space
is all ready in existence and is infinite.

and we don't even understand the big bang itself that well.



well everything starts with a bang. there, one line response of the day.

well everything starts with a bang. there, one line response of the day.


Bang? i thought the new word was bounce.

For space to expand it must cause a change of state from (no space) to space, the only way i can see avoid this weirdness is to accept that space is all ready in existence and is infinite.

It's quite obvious that I can say nothing to convince you that this is wrong.

There's no way to explain the character of space-time. Ineed, it just is. There is no completely satisfactory completion of general relativity, so untill the physicists figure it out, you'll have to accept this conclusion.

It may be that you are right, and the universe is expanding into something. But it doesn't have to be that way---if the universe is flat then it is infinite, for example. There is no problem with a flat (infinite) expanding universe.

I see a problem with an infinite yet expanding universe. Perhaps it could be a potential infinite, but not an actual infinite.

Saying space/time is infinite is no different than saying the universe is. The universe IS space. Space and time can be bent, measured, etc.

It's quite obvious that I can say nothing to convince you that this is wrong.

There's no way to explain the character of space-time. Ineed, it just is. There is no completely satisfactory completion of general relativity, so untill the physicists figure it out, you'll have to accept this conclusion.

It may be that you are right, and the universe is expanding into something. But it doesn't have to be that way---if the universe is flat then it is infinite, for example. There is no problem with a flat (infinite) expanding universe.

Fair play Ben :)

I see a problem with an infinite yet expanding universe. Perhaps it could be a potential infinite, but not an actual infinite.

Saying space/time is infinite is no different than saying the universe is. The universe IS space. Space and time can be bent, measured, etc.

I think you have to take account of the theories that have led to this, GR
is the most tested and scientists are open to other testable theories but,
nothing better as yet, just weirdness left to ponder:confused:

I see a problem with an infinite yet expanding universe. Perhaps it could be a potential infinite, but not an actual infinite.

Saying space/time is infinite is no different than saying the universe is. The universe IS space. Space and time can be bent, measured, etc.

I don't know what "actual" infinite means. Perhaps you could clarify?

imagine the time is meassurement which humans made so if theres no time everything is happening at the same moment :shrug: <---- try to explain this?It is revelant to BB

imagine the time is meassurement which humans made so if theres no time everything is happening at the same moment :shrug: <---- try to explain this?It is revelant to BB

Is time not imbeded in nature, radioactive decay, pulsars.

Can I have something without someplace to put it? If there's no space, where could I put something? Does an object come with its own space or does something require someplace in order to exist?

Personally I think something has always been. Its not necessary to always think something came from nothing. In fact its a waste of time. The number one law of nature may be that it is impossible for there to be nothing.

It's hard to conceptualize nothing, or an absense of everything, and it is just as hard to visualize something coming out of nothing. IMHO I believe it an exercise in futility to believe that nothing came before something.

How about the opposite? Do you think it out of the realm of possibility to believe that the current something will become nothing at some point? Is it easier to conceive something becoming nothing?

Maybe instead of nothing or something, nature creates opposites where one cancels the other out, like negative and positive particles.

I can only agree, but to build a testable model of our universe from
the idea is another thing, what is the eternal stuf?

Can I have something without someplace to put it?

If the "place" doesn't exist without the "it", then absolutely.

Its not necessary to always think something came from nothing. In fact its a waste of time. The number one law of nature may be that it is impossible for there to be nothing...IMHO I believe it an exercise in futility to believe that nothing came before something.

We should be clear that this is a philosophical answer andhas nothing to do with physics.

Do you think it out of the realm of possibility to believe that the current something will become nothing at some point?

This is absolutely a possibility...it is called the Big Crunch.

Maybe instead of nothing or something, nature creates opposites where one cancels the other out, like negative and positive particles.

This is actually a good point, and I don't know howto respond to it. It would be quite catastrophic if the universe and the anti universe decided to cancel each other out spontaneously.

This has always puzzled me..... please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm no physicist but would the Big Crunch be the eventual coming together of all black holes in the universe? If so, in the end, wouldn't it come down to two black holes fighting for the right to become the singularity. The odds are that one would have to be posi-matter and the other anti-matter. I mean shouldn't a black hole be either negative or positive, not a mixed bag?

The reason I say this is because a black hole does not pick and chose posi over anti or vice versa when it is drawing matter towards it. Assuming there exists an equal amount of anti & posi matter in the universe, and if one can destroy the other, even in a black hole, there would eventually be a black hole with a preponderence of one charge, negative or positive. When it comes down to 2 black holes left to duke it out for the title of singularity wouldn't one be anti-matter and the other posi-matter, mirror images so to speak? They would have to be equal in mass, no?

What happens when event horizons overlap and the black holes make contact? Would it all, meaning both black holes, vanish in a violent flash of light or would a lot of shrapnel be created?

The odds are that one would have to be posi-matter and the other anti-matter.

Why should this be?

I mean shouldn't a black hole be either negative or positive, not a mixed bag?

Not really---black holes are gravitational objects, and because both matter and anti-matter interact gravitationally, I don't see any reason for this to be.

Why should this be?

The drawing in of matter is totally random. If the collapsed star black hole is posi-matter then it would have to draw in an equal amount of anti matter just to destroy itself completely. This I think would be a rare occurence in our universe.

The fact that the black hole in this case is posi-matter, and that there is an equal amount of anti and posi particles in the universe, then it can only mean there are more anti particles than posi particles left in the rest of the universe.

It would be impossible for only one black hole to remain standing. The last blackhole cannot contain an equal amount of posi and anti particles because it would have destroyed itself. If there are 2 blackholes left then they have to be composed of equal and opposite charged matter.

Ben,
An actual infinity is a complete set of an inifinite number of elements. Potential infinity is an endless sequence.

It is important to distinguish between the two. My opinion is that "actual' infinities are a contradiction and do not exist in reality. They are a useful convenience in math however.

This isn't an easy answer to swallow of course. The gut reaction is say so what was "before" the universe. Well, we don't really have a word for it. It wasn't even "nothing". The universe came to be, is finite, and unbounded. As good as any guess I would say.

The drawing in of matter is totally random. If the collapsed star black hole is posi-matter then it would have to draw in an equal amount of anti matter just to destroy itself completely. This I think would be a rare occurence in our universe.

But matter dominates our universe, so where will the black hole find the anti-matter?

The fact that the black hole in this case is posi-matter, and that there is an equal amount of anti and posi particles in the universe, then it can only mean there are more anti particles than posi particles left in the rest of the universe.

This is ruled out by obsrevation. If this were true, we'd see huge amounts of matter/anti-matter anihilation at the interfaces between the two regions.

Well, we don't really have a word for it. It wasn't even "nothing". The universe came to be, is finite, and unbounded. As good as any guess I would say.

This is certainly consistent with everything we know about physics. And if there was something before the Big Bang, it's not even clear that we can ever know anything aobut it.

And I'd be interested to hear about why the universe can't be "actual infinite"...

But matter dominates our universe, so where will the black hole find the anti-matter?

How do we know if there aren't galaxies composed entirely of anti-matter? Doesn't every particle have an anti particle?

If it came down to the Big Crunch then at some point anti and posi matter has to collide. I can't understand how both could combine to form anything unless a black hole's forces keep the anti particles from annihilating each other.

dont know a lot about BB but is there no chance that two blackholes could join making a bigger one ??and again it wouldnt make sence imagine if big crunch happens space is left with black hole taken all over space which would mean there isnt space for anything.

How do we know if there aren't galaxies composed entirely of anti-matter? Doesn't every particle have an anti particle?

Suppose there was a pocket of the universe composed entirely of anti-matter. We wouldn't be able to tell the difference just by looking at it, this is true. But, at the region where the pocket of anti-matter came into contact with the rest of the universe, we would see violent matter-anti-matter anihilations. We see no such events, so we must conclude that there are no such pockets.

ben,
And I'd be interested to hear about why the universe can't be "actual infinite"...

For space - it cannot be expanding if it is an actual infinite. infinity + 1 is not valid.

For time - we could never have reached this point if it were an actual infinite. it would take an infinite amount of time to get to this point.

When you really start thinking out the implications of an actual infinite universe you soon come to nonsense.

ben,


For space - it cannot be expanding if it is an actual infinite. infinity + 1 is not valid.

For time - we could never have reached this point if it were an actual infinite. it would take an infinite amount of time to get to this point.

When you really start thinking out the implications of an actual infinite universe you soon come to nonsense.

There are questions that are circular, what is absolute nothing? if nothing is
an impossibility then what has existed for eternity, is an absolute infinity possible, if not what is beyond infinity.

Perhaps 'eternity' and ' beyond infinity' are invalid concepts. In a similar fashion I can ask you - what lies north of the north pole?

My head just sizzled and exploded, i hope you're all happy...

:D

Perhaps 'eternity' and ' beyond infinity' are invalid concepts. In a similar fashion I can ask you - what lies north of the north pole?

This is a good analogy, but it's not clear that the universe has a closed topology. For example, if the universe is flat, then it must be infinite. And infinite in the most infinite sense:) This means that two parallel light rays will always be parallel. As far as they go, they

Ever stop and think how something could become nothing? We could shrink it to a very small size but could it really just disappear forever? I think not. There may be a limit point for a shrinking object that once reached, then expansion is inevitable. The zero point is unattainable or maybe exists for a timeless moment, kind of Hisenberg-ish. Like a wave or pendelum that reaches the zero point has forward momentum and the everpresence of zero point energy may prevent the creation of nothing. I don't know, I'm really out of my league here.

My head just sizzled and exploded, i hope you're all happy...

:D

Proof that a minor input can have a disproportionate catastrophic effect.

Seriously, i think the string people have a some thing from nothing conjecture.

In my own model of the universe, time is on a logarithmic scale. Time has an absolute zero. Thus the phrase "before the Big Bang" has no meaning, just like the phrase "colder than absolute zero."

We live in a slice of time that appears to flow at a constant rate, because we're so far out on the t axis. Besides, our senses are too limited so we probably wouldn't be able to notice it anyway.

There is a field of study that concentrates on the myriad things that occurred during the first fraction of a femtosecond of the universe's existence. Those events would not look so phenomenal on a log scale.