Before the Big Bang

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.

No.
No no no no no.
I am going to try to explain this, AGAIN, tho given that you have ignored both Mod and Ned's simple explanations, I doubt you will listen to me.First.
The Big Bang wasn't "started" to explain anything, any more than 3 is "started" to explain x in the equation 2x = 6. "The Big Bang" is a NICKNAME given to one of the SOLUTIONS of Einstein's EQUATIONS.If you beieve that E=mc2, then you beleive TBB. Wrong wrong wrong. Listen to Ned and Mod! The Big Bang cannot go back to T=0. It can't! Can not. Does not. Got it? The Big Bang gets hung up on a singularity (without QG, that is).So. As far as TBB goes, there is no T=0.Now, I know cavediver would nail my ass to the wall for saying "there is no T=0". It is not technically correct. But I am trying to put this in words you will listen to. Ned did a much better job (and stuck closer to the truth of the physics) in his post, but since you CANNOT or WILL NOT listen, let me spoonfeed you. THERE IS NO T=0 AND NO "BEGINNING" IN THE BIG BANG. No beginning means no middle and no end. First. When there were "problems" with the germ theory (that is, when there were phenomena that could not be fully explained by the germ theory), did we throw it out? No.Second. We didn't "modify" the Big Bang theory. Big Bang theory is a SOLUTION to Einstein's EQUATIONS. M theory is another SOLUTION to Einstein's EQUATIONS. Black holes are another SOLUTION to Einstein's EQUATIONS. There are lots of SOLUTIONS to his EQUATIONS.Theoretical physicists don't just sit around and make shit up. They crunch the numbers. Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. NO.You know, I get the distinct feeling that you just don't want to listen. A person of average intelligence can sit down with Brian Greene's books and get a hold of these ideas.You WANT to believe that TBB says there's a "beginning" and that there wasn't "anything" before the "beginning" because you WANT to believe in a god. Edited by molbiogirl, : typo

SG has drawn a wonderful analogy. Simple. On point. Illustrative.
And yet ...Let's rephrase the question.
Q: What is 1/infinity?
A: We don't know.
When some quantity or another in a calculation turns up a term that's "divided by infinity", that mathematical term no longer makes any sense.SG said: There's an equation that's used to calculate an electric field. That's where one "gets" amps.
When that equation is used to figure out what is going on at or near T=0 or what is going on at or near an electron, the electric field approaches infinity. That is a nonsensical number. It is "a singularity".Re: another of your questions: Using GOOGLE, I found the following: Re: yet another of your questions: Stephen Hawking: I'm not going to google the answer for you.

As I pointed out earlier, you're not looking.I just googled "Hawking" and "singularity". First hit, PBS. Second hit, Wiki.Had you bothered to look at the Wiki entry you would have found the following: By definition, "a point in spacetime" is "in the universe". Let me repeat that, since time and time again folks have tried to explain this to you and you have yet listen.Spacetime = Universe. Period. Full stop.And here's the whole quote from PBS: These are not Dr. Hawking's words. These are the words of some schmuck at PBS.If you are "debating in good faith", per buz, then I suggest you come up with material from some place other than PBS, tripod, space.com and science@nasa.gov. I mean, seriously. Tripod? Tripod??? And these others sites are for children. Children.

You quote Dr. Hawking as saying: However, Dr. Hawking goes on to say, in the very next sentence: I assure you, Dr. Hawking and Dr. Penrose would object to your contention that: In fact, having read the relevant sections of the paper you quoted, I find your quote mining reprehensible. Taken out of context, this quote... ...sounds like Drs. Hawking and Penrose are advocating that ALL of spacetime has a beginning and an end, which is UNTRUE.Since you've chosen this highly technical paper to illustrate your point, why don't you take this opportunity to walk us through the Penrose-Hawking theorem and then explain why you think it supports the idea that all of spacetime has a beginning and an end.Edited by molbiogirl, : My bad. I missed a link.

Why are you quoting me and replying to Chi?Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Really?The first sentence of the paper: And you haven't answered my question. Where do Drs. Hawking and Penrose suggest that ALL of spacetime has a beginning and an end? ALL. A-L-L. Provide quote or link.ABEHint The answer you're looking for has to do with geodesic incompleteness.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Yes!Oh thank you, Ned.What we are saying, yet again, is that the theory that explains the big bang and it's behavior does NOT explain the point of origin of the big bang. The singularity means exactly that.
(emphasis added)Yes yes yes.

The theory you are quote-mining is called the Penrose-Hawking theory.And you can repeat that quote about gravity curling up all you want, buster. It doesn't mean spacetime has a beginning and an end. You have taken Drs. Hawking and Penrose's words out of context. Bull! You referenced one sentence on page 10 and one paragraph on page 60.It's a 61 page document! You are saying it can be summed up by that one sentence and/or that one paragraph!I seriously doubt you read anything else in those papers. But I shouldn't assume that, now should I?Let's see.
What do you make of this bit from page 6, dear boy? Earlier I gave you a hint. The reason your idea that spacetime has a beginning and an end is wrong has to do with geodesic incompleteness.I'm not gonna do the work. You read the paper. You find your mistake.

cavediver:Awwww. Cave. You lucky critter you. As you know, I [heart] physics, but I doubt I could have followed that lecture anyway. That s*** is d-e-e-p. However, I can decode enough of it to know that little mister ICANT hasn't got his ducks in a row.ICANT. Listen carefully. Duck No. 1. Dr. Hawking: It's a quote from your favorite paragraph!Duck No. 2.Wiki: Wiki again: Now do you get it?