Before the Big Bang

Hi Mod, hope you had a wonderful weekend. Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting Underlining and bolding mine.First bold and underline: this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist.Underline only: According to the prevaling cosmological models that explain our universe.Second bold and underline: created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Mod these are not my statements they are what I get from the above quoted reference.It says that all things was created by the explosion. My problem is if all things were created by the explosion how could there be a singularity as it would have been composed of all these things that is a result of the explosion.That makes about as much sense as me saying I caught a 10 lb fish out of the lake in my backyard, when I don't have a backyard.

---

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

double postEdited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

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

Yes - twas great despite the rubbish weather we're getting here. Stood in the largest artificial free flying bat cave in Britain with several of species of bats gently caressing the side of my face Hope yours was as exhilerating as mine. Yes indeed - I still contend that this makes no sense. What is a moment if not something that exists in time? This is the problem we face when discussing the big bang - but I suggest you look to a better source than this. I'll see if I can't dig up some quotes from a book on the subject rather than a short web article on it. Which is one of the reasons I have a problem with this source...cosmologists are constantly trying to say that it wasn't an explosion. I think that this source has simplified things to the point of wild innaccuracy.This is why I can't blame people who fail to grasp the finer points - the simple accounts of it are absolute bobbins. If you really have a passion to learn what the big bang is - rather than a layman's overview - you'd do well with more difficult source material. I urge you to let cavediver talk you through it and not to reward his patience with scorn or dismissal. It makes less sense to me. Hopefully we can together find a better source, I'll skim through a couple of books at home and scour the web to see what I can find. I have a few memories of where to look for a more accurate account of what cosmologists consider the universe to be like but the maths-English translation invariably is imperfect.Once you get that the standard big bang model simply states that the universe is a four dimensional entity with at least one coordinate at which relativity stops working (black holes being other coordinates with singularity issues) we can move on to the more modern ideas on the universe.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Brian Greene, professor physics and mathematics (The Fabric of the Cosmos, Penguin Books, 2005): In a talk by Stephen Hawking: These seem much better sources of information. The talk is about an hour long, but watching it should give you a better grounding into the issue and soon you'll realize that the standard Big Bang model does not suggest that a singularity appears from nowhere and then explodes.I've located a written version of the Hawking lecture: hereEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hey Mod.I just finished Brian's earlier book, The Elegant Universe, so I'm all hopped up on strings and branes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't M theory side step the singularity problem? I'd quote Brian but I just this minute dumped the book into the return slot at the library!Also. Brian mentioned the "pre big bang" ideas of M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano. Seems these two fellas managed to solve the string equations for an infinite, expanding "universe" "pre big bang". So, technically, there was something "before" the bang.Cavediver, help! I'm lost without Brian's book and Gasperini's website is written for physicists.

Sounds about right to me. However, we are talking about models which include a singularity explicitly - essentially we are sticking to big bang models using only GR.Late edit: Here's a quote for from Greene: Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I am still confused, I think.If I understand the Big Bang theory, It states the universe had a beginning, in which everything in existence was created.Beginning - definition of beginning by The Free Dictionary This definition implies that none of the things brought into being during the orgin of the universe had an existence prior to the orgin of the universe.Therefore it is not the distribution of things but the actual creation of those things and the distribution of them.All these things were created in a total absence of anything, by the creating force of the Big Bang.

---

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

dbl postEdited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

"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 think part of the confusion is the definition of "universe".It used to mean "everything there is or was" (or some such). It's closer to "observable" universe now (in both time and space).A dictionary definition is useless in this context. So don't bother applying it.Re read the thread and see if you have some specific questions.The big bang was NOT "created" from a "total absence". When you read that it means you're reading oversimplified material. Please re read above posts.

cavediver, I missed this one but wanted to comment. Ripples are not a feature of the pool without something acting upon the pool there will never be a ripple.There can be no ripples on the pool without outside forces acting upon the pool.The wind moving across the face of the pool can cause ripples.An object dropped, or thrown into the pool can cause ripples.A fish, jumping or something else in the water breaking the surface of the pool can cause ripples. (a fish swimming close to the surface can cause a ripple.)These ripples do have a starting point it is called the cause.Then you liken matter and energy to the ripples on the pool. I am having a really hard time understanding the above statement.It seems to be saying the universe has always been here and matter and energy are a part of it, thereby not having to be created.But the Big Bang theory says all matter and energy was created during the Big Bang.Could you please clarify for me.Thanks

---

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

No it just means that I am examining the Big Bang theory without bringing in the concepts put forth by the string theory or m theory or any of the other theories.As I understand the Big Bang theory, it says that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, Subatomic particles and thus matter and energy, space and time itself.
References: Message 155Feel free to correct those resources or explain them. Was there an absence of anything?Does the Big Bang theory claim to be the beginning of everything?

---

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

See Message 199 where I show that examining the Big Bang on its own does not give us any clue as to 'how it begun', 'what banged' etc. The standard Big Bang explanation is not up to the task and it doesn't pretend to be.

I am well aware of where you quoted 2 men as to the explanation of the Big Bang theory.And I suppose since they are Gods of science their opinion make it a concensus of a majority of scientist.The information below is provided by the University of Michigan bigbang htm.I suppose this is what is taught in the classroom as there are no disclaimers with the article.http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite.But it had a beginning, a middle and a future.Beginning - definition of beginning by The Free Dictionary This definition denotes an absence of anything.Big Bang - Wikipedia Before this time it was held that the universe was infinite reaching back into eternity and forward into eternity. Which would allow for the many different theories being thrown about today, such as string or M theory or some of the other theories.The universe is either finite as the Big Bang theory says.Or infinite as one of these other theories say.

---

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

Reference 1:
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

quote:

---

According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.

---

Of course, calling it an explosion and saying it "hurled matter" tells you that this is simplified to the degree that it is wrong. The site is for pre teens. It is inadequate to be used to begin to understand what the model is really about.

quote:

---

...leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.

---

Since the questions are not given it isn't possible to tell what they are talking about. The big bang, as we are discussing here, does leave unanswered questions and we know that it isn't the last word.The germ theory of disease leaves unanswered the origin of most cancers. That doesn't make it wrong.#2 Reference
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htmAnother enormously simplified description but one that is not too wrong. However, as a nit pick I'm pretty sure that matter (above the level of quarks came a long somewhat later than the time given below.

quote:

---

As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter.

---

To make sense of this site you have to sort out what you mean by "universe" and "everything". You are, know it or not, talking about the "observable universe" and the space-time as described by general relativity (and, I understand, GR predicts the big bang as a consequence of the nature of space-time). Once you understand the GR isn't useful right up to T=0 then we have "something" before that 10^-43 of a second where GR can describe what happened.Reference #3
Page not found | Simon Singh
A good book about the history of the idea. Not as deep as Greene's books though but a good place to start.Correct: There was no space-time (the general relativistic framework of our observed universe).and the others go on like this: The big bang explains the structure of space-time and it's history from 10^-43 seconds after a singularity in the GR equations. That is the "everything" we know around us. However, clearly, the model is incomplete.And there is more "everything" than time and space and matter and energy. There are "fields". (Now we need real physicists to intervene again ). Since the big bang model, by it's very nature will never be complete we need more to explain how the conditions leading to it arose.Get one thing clear: The big bang model is very, very solid. It has gathered significant experimental support and is founded on GR (also supported to a ridiculous degree). So put that aside.What we do not know is what lies outside the observable universe (see!! the word 'universe' stops meaning "everything" -- an aside: the milky way galaxy used to be the "universe" -- in fact for awhile galaxies were called "island universes". Now we need another word for whatever "everything" really is.) There was an absence of everything we know as "anything". But the common english words are pretty much useless to discuss this. Is a 10-dimensional brane made up of matter or energy or time? I think not. Does that mean it isn't "anything". I don't know -- define your terms. It claims to be the beginning of what we observe around us now. Experiments are being conducted to see if we can observe outside of "everything" right now. You can not expect everyday words to capture an even partially correct picture.As we've noted before, time (as the word is used mostly) is a general relativistic concept. Maybe there is a broader type of thing that is like "time" outside of GR but I dunno. GR isn't valid at T=0 therefore the concept of "time" as you are using it isn't meaningful anymore. Therefore all our English words and meanings are gone.Go back up thread to the north pole question. Answer it. If you don't understand the issue with that question I don't think you have teeny, tiny chance of wrapping your head around the rest.

No - the reason I quoted them was twofold. First they are recognizable authorities. But more importantly in both cases they are able to explain the principles in more detail than a brief layman's overview. This allows for more precise and careful wording about the theory.Why are you being so confrontational about this? Do you think that Stephen Hawking doesn't know what the big bang is in detail? Are you suggesting he's wrong about the big bang? Good luck with that. You are seriously suggesting that that a webpage dedicated to geoscience at the University of Michigan (or gs265 as the url indicates) written by two unknown people (geologists?), gives a more accurate outlook than a book by a string theorist and a lecture by a cosmologist??You have some odd standards of evidence ICANT, but let's work with that. How about we ditch the geoscience page but we stick to the University of Michigan as a source. This page says: That was an astronomist from Michigan University named Charles R. Cowley. Also, if we look at the books recommended by the amateur astronomy club at the university you will see that they recommend the work of Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking. That's definition 1. How about definition 6: Or definition three If I said I was stood at the beginning of the corridor - you don't think I am standing at the act of bringing the corridor into being.You then quote the wiki page on the Big Bang which states What do you know it states that the Big Bang theory cannot discuss the earliest moments of the universe (the Bang itself) and that relativity alone is insufficient - a quantum theory of gravity is needed.Which is what we've been saying. Well - erm yes either the universe is finite or it is infinite - obviously. The Big Bang does not state that a singularity appears from 'nowhere' - it doesn't appear at all, it's just a point on a four dimensional universe.