Before the Big Bang

I agree, it's a tough one. I guess I've always gone with Hartle Hawking, as it seems more in tune with the spirit (or my perception of the spirit) of FRW and GR in general. If you can appreciate the globe (north pole, south pole) analogy of a closed FRW, you have gained a real insight into GR. You can then take that picture and easily expand into the current FLRW picture.Talking about pushing through the singularity, while quite possibly what happened, does not give such the large-scale insight. So I guess I'm more reacting out of defense of my own presentation, and others may well say that FRW with its singularity is more in tune with your picture than mine, where I ignore the singularity by silently invoking No-Boundary.It is the age-old problem of knowing what to present - we know the SM is 'wrong' but it is still the only concensus! I remember slamming a guy on sci.phys.research in the very early nineties for presenting FLRW with +ve lambda as the truth - he claimed his group had evidence of +ve lambda, and my response was- so what? Until it is concensus, you teach the SM, as in FRW. I should look him up and let him know that he's ok to continue now BTW, loved your comment: very, very true...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

In Message 299 ICANT tries to support his position that the cosmologists vision of the universe is: There are two problems with this concept that stand out. The first is the idea of something appearing from nothing and the second is for that something to expand into 'the universe'. The latter is probably sloppy wording since obviously the universe cannot expand into the universe.
Think the universe is a four dimensional entity. We can refer to any part of the universe by giving a spatial and time dimension. This is confusing so let's talk about a more simple universe with only one dimension, here it is:

*--------------------------------------!-------------------
time:0                                     now         the future

We can describe anywhere in this universe just by using the time dimension. What we cannot do is describe anything to the 'left' of time:0 (or rather before time:0), it's just nothing. Not the absence of energy - nothing. It simply isn't anything. We could ask what is north of now and get the same kind of answer.This is kind of a standard big bang scenario, the maths says the universe was hotter and denser in the past. However, when we plug in time '0' we start having to divide things by 0 and start getting crazy answers. The so-called 'singularity'. I couldn't give numbers but let us say that two basic camps came into existence when this model was being hashed out. One that asserted the singularity was real, and others that it was an artefact of the mathematics which was unable to describe time:0.ICANT put forward Paul Davies as support, here is what he has to say:

quote:

---

In spite of the space-time linkage, however, space is space and time is time under almost all circumstances. Whatever space-time distortions gravitation may produce, they never turn space into time or time into space. An exception arises, though, when quantum effects are taken into account. That all-important intrinsic uncertainty that afflicts quantum systems can be applied to space-time, too. In this case, the uncertainty can, under special circumstances, affect the identities of space and time. For a very, very brief duration, it is possible for time and space to merge in identity, for time to become, so to speak, spacelike-just another dimension of space.

​

The spatialization of time is not something abrupt; it is a continuous process. Viewed in reverse as the temporalization of (one dimension of) space, it implies that time can emerge out of space in a continuous process. (By continuous, I mean that the timelike quality of a dimension, as opposed to its spacelike quality, is not an all-or-nothing affair; there are shades in between. This vague statement can be made quite precise mathematically.)

​

The essence of the Hartle-Hawking idea is that the big bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an ultrarapid but nevertheless continuous manner. On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that there was no precise and sudden beginning at all. So here we have a theory of the origin of the universe that seems to say two contradictory things: First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics.

​

Even with these further details thrown in, many people feel cheated. They want to ask why these weird things happened, why there is a universe, and why this universe. Perhaps science cannot answer such questions. Science is good at telling us how, but not so good on the why. Maybe there isn't a why. To wonder why is very human, but perhaps there is no answer in human terms to such deep questions of existence. Or perhaps there is, but we are looking at the problem in the wrong way.

​

Well, I didn't promise to provide the answers to life, the universe, and everything, but I have at least given a plausible answer to the question I started out with: What happened before the big bang?
The answer is: Nothing.

---

Indeed, nothing happened before the big bang, nothing whatsoever. At least in some models. However, the model is not saying that a singularity 'appeared' out of nothing. Indeed, a singularity appearing out of nothing is 'something' that has to happen and Mr Davies clearly states that nothing happened so no 'something' happened which includes singularities appearing.Further support ICANT puts forward is from here, which states that:

quote:

---

A common question that people ask is "What happened before the Big Bang?" The phrase "in the beginning" is used here to refer to the birth of our universe with the Big Bang. In the creation of the universe, everything was compressed into an infinitesimally small point, in which all physical laws that we know of do not apply. No information from any "previous" stuff could have remained intact. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the Big Bang is considered the beginning of everything, for we can never know if there was anything before it.

---

Putting forward the further idea that even if something did happen prior to the 'Bang', we would not be able to find out what it was. Not that there was a singularity that appeared out of nothing.ICANT then points to the introduction to a laypersons book on cosmology by Janna Levin. It doesn't explicitly state a singularity appeared, but it does imply it. Still - I'll reserve judgement until I see the completion of her argument rather than its introduction. The comment "There was once nothing and now there is something. " does sound impossible, but she was forwarding her idea of a finite universe and so that kind of language might come out.Finally, ICANT refers to this which basically says "The singularity is the point at which time has no meaning." which negates the idea of the singularity 'appearing from nothing' since that sentence requires time to make sense and since time has no meaning the singularity can not be said to be 'appearing' from anything. Of course this leads us to clumsy language issues:If I walk into a bar and someone says "Where did you fly in from?", I might reply "nowhere". That doesn't mean I was nowhere and I flew into a city and went into a bar. It just means I didn't fly at all. In the same sense the singularity did indeed appear from nowhere. However, the more accurate way of phrasing it would be to say that the singularity (if it was as a singularity) did not just appear at all.To correct the 'story' proposed by ICANT then:

quote:

---

The big bang is a model that describes a singularity (or just a hot dense region of space-time expanding, or inflating

---

And to emphasise this is mostly the classic big bang model under discussion. Such ideas about phase transitions, the gradual emergence of time, Higgs Fields and the like discussed elsewhere in this thread should be examined once the basic big bang model is understood. One of ICANT's links refers you to this which is an interesting look into the kind of thinking going on into the field.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hi, Modulous,I see I put a cocklebur under your saddle blanket. But now we are at the point there was something before the big bang.
Now we need to know where that something came from.I say in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Then I am asked who created God? Where did He come from?
I say He always was. Reply, no way nothing is infinite.Mod when I talk about the singularity I am making fun of it because I do not believe something can come from nothing.
I believe that something or someone has to cause things to happen.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Well - the more accurate point of view is that I offered to discuss the subject with you in the cosmology forums and then you replied by repeating your position and then the thread was closed. I thought you were taking up my offer so here we are. No we're not. Read what I wrote again and you'll see that that is not the point we are at. At all. There was not something before the big bang - the singularity did not appear it is simply a coordinate in spacetime. Just like north is a coordinate on earth-surface and there is no north of north (I believe this analogy was first put forward by Hawking). Not from me - I say there must be an entity that exists without creation. You say that is God. I say it is reality (including all of time, past present and future) and that saying God is taking an unnecessary step back. Certain razors and parsimonious explanations jump in at this point. Please read what I wrote again, because I state very clearly that I think that the idea of something coming from nothing is impossible. I go on to further state that the Big Bang model does not propose something coming out of nothing. I find it quite astonishing that I can write so much, even adding a reference for you, and you still think that the Big Bang with singularity model proposes something coming from nothing!It doesn't.The Big Bang does not propose something coming from nothing.Something coming from nothing doesn't make sense.The Big Bang does not propose something coming from nothing. As do I. Though I think 'someone' is superfluous because 'something' covers that quite nicely. There are many good 'somethings' proposed for how very hot and dense universe can develop a time dimension and rapidly inflate. There are some good 'somethings' proposed for why there there was a hot and dense universe.None of those 'somethings' are 'nothing'. Try reading this which I referred to earlier. One of your sources pointed to it. The subject is difficult so can you do me a favour? Instead of dismissing the whole thing with a short and glib response which repeats what you think the Big Bang is about...could you either spend some time trying to understand it. If not you can do just as well by not pretending you understand. Otherwise there will be a cocklebur under my saddle blanket.

I agree, it has never made sense to me.http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html Being widely accepted does not make it true.http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm At one time many believed the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite.Then the Big Bang theory killed that idea.The Big Bang theory is everything had a beginning, with a history.Page not found | Simon Singh A day without a yesterday. Sounds like nothing existed before.Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium The Big Bang did not expand through anything. That leaves nothing.There was no space.The Big Bang created space and stretched it.Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting This is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist.An ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature...Created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself.Thus all particles, matter, energy, space and time itself was created at the moment of Big Bang.If these things did not exist before the Big Bang, then there was nothing.http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bang.html The instant the universe began, when time and space came into existence.Page Not Found | Science Mission Directorate This meant that there must have been an instant in time (now known to be about 14 billion years ago) when the entire Universe was contained in a single point in space.But there was no space for the single point to be as space did not exist according to the Big Bang theory. See quotes above.Glimpse of Time Before Big Bang Possible | Space The Big Bang is often thought as the start of everything, including time,Everything means there was nothing before.Modulous it is time for science to do science and dump the Big Bang theory.Mod, I am just a simple farm boy, who was not educated in the sciences. But I do know that in my lifetime I have never seen something come from nothing. I agree with Aristotle, that it has always been. When I studied Hebrew and Chaldee we discussed Genesis 1:1 throughly.My understanding from the Hebrew and Chaldee, that Genesis 1:1 infers that in the realm or sphere of the beginnings God literally tore from Himself the entire universe. But according to all the statements concerning the Big bang theory above there was no space or time. That means there was either something there or nothing was there. Here you are saying there is an entity that was in existence before the Big Bang. You are not shouting as loud as all these other references I find.Let me sum up before the Big Bang:There was no space.
There was no time.
There was no particles.
There was no matter.
There was no subatomic particles.
There was no energy.If all these things were created during the Big Bang and did not exist before please explain:What did exist?
How you could have an explosion of trillions of degrees in temperature without energy?

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You know, I rather think that scientists do do science. Guys like Einstein, you know, Nobel Prize winning physicists, people like that. They can't see the difficulties which you evidently can.So which is more likely:(1) You, a "simple farm boy", who was "not educated in the sciences", and in particular having never studied General Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics, have a better grasp of their implications than Nobel Prize winning physicists.(2) They know more physics than you do.

Nothing existed. But what would you expect from a non-place with non-materials that had no ontoloical meaning becasue there was no time? And how hot was it just before the big bang went off? Unrealistically hot!The big bang theory is the logical result from discovering that the universe is expanding. There are no know phycisal laws or principles that explain what "existed" before the big bang happened. But "existence" is a fragile term, easily abused by philosophers of science. It is impossible for us to know what preceded the big bang, because we are still too ignorant about the physics of nothingness and timelessness.Who knows? Maybe a bearded old man tinkering with the cosmological constant set off the big bang by mistake. Paul Davies did call is it "The Accidental Universe."”HM

I sure hope they do. If they don't they wasted a lot of money on schooling.Now would you like to try to answer my question or point me to the answer.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I say nothing existed, according to what I can find the Big Bang theory proposes, therefore something came from nothing. Modulous says the Big Bang theory does not propose something coming from nothing. Therefore he can't understand why I don't understand that the Big Bang theory does not come from nothing.Dr. infers I am too stupid to understand it anyway.Then you say Nothing existed. That raises another question, How could nothing be so unrealistically hot?If I did not believe God was there you guys would have me very confused.Enjoy

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I'm not one of our resident cosmologists but I'll put my two cents worth in anyway.The big bang is a description of the universe from a very short period of time after our current physics suggests a singularity. That is saying two things:1) It is NOT covering anything "before" that millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth (more or less ) of a second after the apparent singularity.2) At that point, which the cosmology and physics can talk about there was NOT nothing. The entirety of what we know as our universe was in a very, very hot and dense state.That there was such a point is very well supported by both the math and the observations.What happened before that, and we can talk about "before" because there is a tiny bit of time that we can't extend our physics into, and why it got there we don't know.If you want to insert your god into that gap in knowledge you have that wiggle room right now. It's hard enough that you may keep that wiggle room for your life time but you may not. There are speculations and even somethings better than that to fill in that gap too.I've often said myself that there is no "before" the big bang. But thinking about it a bit I realize that there is room for a little bit of before. There are attempts to reach back and outside of the big bang theory altogether. I wouldn't say that any of them is well developed enough to supply an answer so, again, the answer is "Dunno".Penrose spoke here last summer about his own, as he called them, "speculations". He had some grad students pushing the math a bit more. All of which is outside of the big bang and not part of it.

I believe Mod is correct. I use nothingness vaguely as a metaphor for our ignorance about pre-big-bang conditions. The same could be said about the conditions attending abiogenesis. I'm sure they were physical, too, but we still don't know what they were. Miracles fill in where scientific principles fail to explain. The need to believe in miracles is worse than a drug; it will run off with your soul. But gods are always comforting until something better comes along. I believe science is the true miracle, if not another kind of drug. After all, it was Einsten who said: "The most incomprehensible thing about nature is that it is comprehensible."”HM

That is not true. I didn't say that you were too stupid to understand the relevant physics, I pointed out that you'd never tried to understand it. You haven't studied the subject. And the reason I said that you hadn't studied physics is that you yourself said that you hadn't had a scientific eductation.The people who have studied physics, and are very very good at it, don't see the same problems that you do with the Big Bang. This suggests that the problems you have with the Big Bang is not that physics contradicts the Big Bang, but rather that you don't know physics as well as they do.I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm just saying that you're not a preternaturally gifted genius. Let me ask you again to decide which is more likely:(1) Without even having studied physics, you know more about it than Nobel Prize winning physicists such as, for example, Einstein. Hence, you are the most remarkable prodigy in physics that has ever lived.(2) The experts disagree with you 'cos they know more about their field of expertise than you do.Really --- which is more likely?

If, as you say, there was "no time" before the Big Bang, then the phrase "before the Big Bang" is meaningless, like "North of the North Pole", and your question makes no sense.

But Dr. These people you are talking about are the people I have been reading and quoting.I have only what I can find to read and examine to form my conclusions from.All of the articles quoted pointed to a time when there was nothing.If there was a time we had nothing but now we have the universe. What conclusion can I come too other than something came from nothing.Now if they want to say there was something there that is fine with me.Grandma, used to say son you can't have your cake and eat it too.Either there was something there and that is what the universe came from.ORThere was nothing there and that is what the universe came from.Which was it?Did I misunderstand all the referencces I quoted in Message 155?

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Then are you saying everything came from nothing.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."