what was before the Big Bang?

This may sound simplistic, but what was before the Big Bang? What caused it to happen? How did everything come from nothing? I would appreciate any comments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

God sneezed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no good explanation. We also have no good explanation for what "caused" Dan Quayle. These things just happen.

No? Well, here's my (possibly poor) understanding.


As you run time backward and observe the universe as it gets closer and closer to the Big Bang, all the mass and energy in the universe will be contained in a smaller and smaller volume of space. This causes the temperature of the universe to climb continuously higher.

Still closer to the big bang the universe is much hotter and the Four Forces unify into one force.

Still closer to the big bang the universe is much hotter and gravity may have been a repulsive force instead of an attractive force.

Still closer and hotter - within a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang. Space and time are infinitely curved. All the known laws of physics go out the window and we cannot predict what laws of physics would apply. Therefore, we cannot deduce what happened in that first fraction of a second. Therefore, we cannot deduce what happened at the moment of the big bang, nor, indeed, what caused it.

This thinking also leads us to firmly believe that we can never know what caused the big bang. Everything that is the universe today came from a moment after the big bang. No evidence or theory will ever allow us to peer beyond that first fraction of a second.

:m: Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But keep in mind that cosmologists believe the infinites of the singularity will be replaced with something finite from quantum gravity. So in the absence of any infinite density or temperature, we may be able to say what, if anything occured "before" the start of the expansion.

 

Big bang theory dictates that time started at the big bang. So 'what was before the big bang' is not a valid question.

Also, since there is no time before the big bang, I do not see how an 'event' can occur in a timeless state to initiate the big bang. If there is no time, there is not a point in which an event can occur. This makes 'what caused the big bang' very difficult.

I think it is more reasonable, if one is to believe big bang theory, to believe it occurred without cause.

 

There was no time, no nothing. The universe began, as did time, counting the seconds or aeons before then would take forever, because they would go on to infinity. Maybe...maybe somehow the no-time built up to such an extent (this would occur instantaneously from our dimensional viewpoint) that the universe formed when time allowed it to do so, that immense pressure buckled the constraints of a previous universe where time was nonexistent. Matter had time to form when time was allowed.

Think about it. If our universe filled with matter to the brim, let's just say because the matter had nowhere to go (the expansion would have to have ceased for this example), wouldn't it eventually fizz through small holes it itself created into the nothingness beyond and, in a sense, birth another universe? You can shoot me down on this one (I welcome it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) but if this can be done with the first three dimensions, why not the fourth?

There was too much no-time for there not to be time.

 

Who needs logic anyway?

 

Pollux,
You talk about the 'no-time' before the big bang as if it is a great expanse of...well...time.

If time had indeed not started then there would be no motion, no change. Nothing could occur. There could be no counting, nothing happened before or after anything else. It would not even be static as there would be no measure of time to render something as unchanging. That is why I have a hard time with it because I cannot rationalize how an event (start of the big bang) can occur without time.

Anybody follow me?

 

Tried to, but ran outta time.

 

Let me try to explain

When it comes to astrophysics, logic is nonexistent.

A universe existed that held no matter, no time passed, in fact it was either so infinitely small or so infinitely large that its size could not be measured. In this universe only a lack of time existed (think of it as anti-time, like anti-matter). The lack of time built up instantaneously--it took no time whatsoever, and as a result somehow the opposite was created, and with the introduction of time to work with in our universe the first subatomic particles could form and expand.

 

Re: Let me try to explain

"No-time" is exactly the same as a lack of time. It's basic logic.

And no, anti-matter is just matter with opposite charges as normal matter. There is no such thing as anti-time to compare it to.

 

A recent theory states that we should not speak of the big bang but of a big bang.

In this theory, a big bang does not bring time and matter into existence, but merely renews all of it (my very simplistic understanding

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

A big bang occurs when two universes collide. This is possible because several universes (which can be compared to separate sheets of paper) float parallel in yet another dimension, containig them all.

I posted a thread about this. I named it with the original name of the theory. Not many people reply in it.

I should have called it: "LOOK OUT! OUR UNIVERSE ABOUT TO COLLIDE WITH PARALLEL ONE!!" Grab your cat and leave the house now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm sketchy on this...but did creation of our universe begin with equal numbers of matter and anti matter? I think the theory goes that they bonded, but there was slightly more matter than anti matter, and that left us with the universe. If so, perhaps by thinking of time as merely a synonym of matter (for reference but not really, i.e time=matter) you could say that in the previous universe time and no-time existed instantaneously in equilibrium before time, like matter, overcame no-time.

And by the way, I don't mean to get vicious, if that's how I come off, I merely want to spur discussion.

Is there a compilation of all the theories that are supposed to explain creation?

 

That's typically what is claimed. Inflation or what not causes more matter than anti matter to form, and the resulting annihilations leave us with some matter left over.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. No one is saying notime and time existed together, as that would be illogical nonsense. It has been said that there is no before the BB at all, but that doesn't mean there was some kind of timeless state prior.

It would be like saying there was no matter and there was matter at the same time. Anti-matter is NOT the same as saying no matter. It is just matter with opposite charges.

Yeah, but no one really knows which is correct. There is inflation, which does away with the need for spacetime to have a beginning at all, and there are the various brane cosmologies. But there is too little evidence to confirm any such theories as of now.

 

The Universe has existed and will exist forever.

"forever" is defined as "all of time". As "all of time" is contained within the Universe it has been and will be here for all of time. Therefore the Universe has only ever existed. There was nothing before the Universe. In fact it is a meaningless statement.

Without time and space, when and where can anything happen?

kind regards
Paul

 

Maybe I'm not illustrating my point enough...

Alright. Anti matter isn't the opposite of matter. I guess I can throw that example out the window.

Question: anti matter can't travel at or faster than the speed of light, can it?

We have to consider the two parts of time, future and present, as forces in themselves.

Let's try something new. Suppose that before the universe began as we know it, there was a point of space that was filled with equal amounts of past and future. Today, on earth, the future is what we are moving toward, the past is what we are moving away from. When matter travels at any speed, no matter how great or miniscule, the time that the object ages decreases, almost as if past itself was winning some sort of battle with the future. If it were possible for a piece of matter to reach the speed of light, time would reach an equilibrium. It would freeze for that piece of matter, past and future would have equal tugs upon it.

In its very early stages the universe was expanding at almost the speed of light, is it possible for that one instant, the very instant that the universe was created, it expanded at the speed of light? If so, wouldn't that mean that the universe would be frozen to an infinitely small particle...forever? That particle is all that exists, therefore all that exists is frozen for eternity.

If this is true, somehow the balances were tipped ever so slightly. The expansion decelerated and time as we percieve it came into being, but it was only allowed to decelerate early on because it had the time to do so. Future had more weight than past. How can this be?

Part of Relativity is flawed. Forever is not forever, the speed of light does not cease time from being percieved, rather, moving slightly faster creates this effect. Nothing can do this, not even the universe, so time did tick by at an incredibly slow pace, but it sped up and time shifted more to the future.

I don't know about this one either.....

 

Too much spur-of-the-moment thinking I guess.

 

i dont mean to sound stupid what 4 forces goofy?

gravity?

or do you mean push, pull and twist?

and what if there is META-time?

i mean what if they time WE measure (ie yesterday, tomorow) is only PART of a GREATER time

sort of like measuring the distance of a block of land compared to the rest of the world

would that alow an "event" to start the big bang?

edit to adress to right member

 

I believe that the four forces are--

Strong Nuclear Force
Weak Nuclear Force
Gravity
Dark Matter/Energy

I think that gravity is the weakest, also it's the one we know the most about.