Before the big bang, there was nothing. Well, more reasonably, there was nothing that physicists can talk about. Some say that God created the universe. Others say that the big bang came from a quantum fluctuation that preceded the existence of time, space and the universe itself. Of course quantum fluctuations have never been known to cause random explosions out of nothingness, so this explanation is a little too convenient to be right. That just leaves the words of the Creator in a time before physics. Some things can exist outside of space, outside of time, and beyond the reach of physics.
There has been no evidence to date that *nothing* (i.e. an absence of everything and anything) exists. This is also incorrect. M-theory for example predicts that our universe is a brane in larger structure called the bulk. It is true that any person who is involved with a specific theory that has a definitive time range (like the original Big Bang theory) cannot talk about what is beyond that range... mainly because that's not something the theory addresses. Yes they do. When you have a sapient life form that can do anything then you never have to experience saying "I don't know" vs. "God did it". For some people it's much better to have an answer (regardless of whether it's true or not). "Quantum fluctuation" is a generic phrase that doesn't resolve to a specific meaning the way you are using it. I don't know what specific theory you are trying to represent with it, but I have a suspicion that you are horribly misrepresenting it. I hope you realize that the statement is both incoherent and non-squiteur. Let me rephrase the worst of it: "A generic phrase that doesn't resolve to a specific meaning has never been known to cause objectively unpredictable explosions out of an entity whose existence has no evidenciary support..." This statement also has a lot of incoherencies about it; however, that doesn't really matter at the moment because the psychology of what you just did is quite evident. "I don't know what happened; therefore, 'God' did it.". Now you have an answer and I suspect having that answer is more important than saying "I don't know". If "God of the gaps" works for you then run with it; however, this is a science site and to convince people who value truth above how they feel (which you will often find in science communities) you will have to provide predictive and / or correspondence evidence for your theories (even non-scientific ones like this one). This is a different kind of psychological statement. It is one where the claimer tries to put their claim ('God' in your case) out of reach so it cannot be scrutinized.
This is part of the reason I have considered if there is another way to get around conservation laws. If you assume that energy cannot be created or destroyed, then this would lead you to conclude that all the energy and matter that is present now would have had to have been here forever. Then if all the matter and energy has always been here forever, and it all came from one event The Big Bang, then there is no way to avoid a singularity from arrising from the moment of The Big Bang. Then if everything in the moment of The Bing Bang was in a singularity it would then have to have an event horizon. If it had an event horizon then nothing would be able to escape. Then there would be no Big Bang. But, a quantum fluctuation of a particle pair being created from nothing does not have to obey the laws of conservation. You in effect get something from nothing. But, then there is the problem that a particle pair wouldn't be able to create an explosion of infinite energy. This has in a way lead me to beleive that there must be another way. There has to be another way in order to create energy from nothing. Everything couldn't have always have been here or it would have never been able to escape the singularity at the moment of The Big Bang. We know the Big Bang did happen, and that is why we are here. The laws of conservation do not allow the Big Bang to happen. A few particles pairs being created out of nothing at the same time cannot account for all the matter in the universe. There has to be another way!
There's one tiny - but highly important - flaw in your reasoning. All reputable scientists are keenly aware that the laws of physics, as WE know them, did not apply before the BB.
The singularity doesn't really arise because of conservation laws. The singularity is there because of the spacetime structure of the past. The singularity does not violate the conservations laws, since they apply within the spacetime structure of the universe and are not necessarily violated by a singularity. Not all singularities have event horizons. The one associated with the Big Bang does not. Yes, it does.
No where did I mention anything about the laws of physics before the Big Bang. And the laws of physics before the Big Bang had nothing to do with the problems I mentioned about the Big Bang. The laws of physics close to the moment of the Big Bang are theorized to be different because they lead to a singularity. In a singularity the laws of physics break down, or Einsteins General Theory of Relativity. In no way in General Relativity is it predicted that a mass can escape a singularity or a black hole, except for Hawking Radiation. I don't think Hawking Radiation is responsible for the Big Bang, and I don't think Hawking Radiation is a true description of a black hole or any of the predictions made by Hawking Radiation. So then even though a singularity in a black hole could have different laws of physics, it is not an accepted theory to say that any change in those laws could result in matter escaping a singularity. So then any alteration of the laws of physics caused by a singularity cannot be shown to allow for something to escape the singularity, this being true even before you get to the moment of the Big Bang. So then by definition, a singularity is something from which nothing can escape, the alteration in the laws of physics do not allow an object to escape because it cannot travel faster than the speed of light. The speed of light in General Relativity remains constant when applied to a black hole. If the laws of physics inside of a black hole changed so that something could travel faster than the speed of light, it could then escape the black hole, but that is not what happens. So then no matter what different laws of physics someone could use, if all matter was present at the Big Bang then it would create a singularity and then nothing could escape it.
If the initial singularity, (if there was one), generated an event horizon, then the EH would encompass some volume. While nothing could escape the EH, the space WITHIN the EH undergoes Inflation. This would increase the radius of the EH, at the same time decreasing the gravitational density. At some point, the gravitational field of the universe would fall below the critical limit for an EH, and the EH would disappear.
Why would the event horizon undergo inflation? Black Holes do not inflate. I am surprised in you AlexG, I have never heard someone mention anything like this before. I don't see why a singularity as a whole should inflate. I never could figure out why scientist have just not concluded that there was no singularty or event horizon close to the moment of the Big Bang.
You certainly wasted a lot of words in order to say nothing of importance! The TRUE fact is that we do NOT know what the laws of physics were BEFORE nor DURING the moment of the Big Bang. All you are doing here is voicing your own personal opinion with absolutely no basis to stand on - so it's worthless.
I am only posting this video because it directly addresses the question. I am not asserting that it is correct but it is very interesting. The audio volume is very low until Sir Roger Penrose begins to speak. Aeons Before the Big Bang - Sir Roger Penrose Christmas Lecture The video is over 1 hour long so for those that do not want to invest that amount of time you can read this: BEFORE THE BIG BANG: AN OUTRAGEOUS NEW PERSPECTIVE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PARTICLE PHYSICS
I haven't even gotten to that part yet. I am talking about things that would accure AFTER the Big Bang. If you rewind the clock closer to the moment of the Big Bang, a singularity will arrise before you even get to the moment of the Big Bang. The basis is that nothing can escape a black hole, if all the matter in the universe was project to all be at the same location it would create a black hole. We cannot know the laws of physics in a black hole, but we know that nothing can escape a black hole. Objects don't escape black holes even though the laws of physics can be different inside of them. All I am basing this on is that the laws of physics cannot change to allow something to escape a black hole.
Excellent Penrose paper there Cheezle (although I really hated the way he hijacked the word "special" to mean "low entropy").
So in addition to your other unfounded assumptions you are also unaware of Hawkin radiation? You even mentioned it earlier but now you say nothing can escape. Do you always have a problem with being consistent? And do you also have some "special" knowledge that enables you to be certain we are no longer inside the event horizon of the singularity? If so, please describe it for us.
In Hawking Radiation, nothing actually escapes a black hole. Particle pairs are created at the event horizon and then the anti-particle goes inside of the black hole and then the other particle escapes. So then it is consistant, even in Hawking Radiation a particle is not allowed to pass out of the even horizon from inside of the event horizon, if you did accept Hawkings theory. If Hawking Radiation could accuretly be described as the creation of matter at the Big Bang, I would think Stephen Hawking would have mentioned something about it. If you would like to find out that you are not in a black hole, simply take a look around. As you will notice everything in your observational reality is not getting spaghettified around you! I don't think there is anything about our experience that suggest that we are inside of a black hole. The universe is more like a grey hole, it shares some of the properties of a black hole, but these properties are not caused by large amounts of gravitational forces. I don't think it is accepted theory that the universe is a black hole and attempts to describe it this way have shown that it is more like a grey hole.
To say that you had special knowledge that we are inside of a black hole, would mean that you know that the laws of physics are the same as outside of a black hole.
Nope, my own idea. BHs don't inflate now. But I'm talking about the initial inflation. IF there was a singularity, or anything for that matter, creating an event horizon, this event horizon encompassed an area of space. Since this area of space was all there was, it also ecompassed the inflaton field. Inflation did the rest, and no more event horizon,
