What if: What was before the big bang?

[DarkAce]

I wasn't sure where to post this but I'll put it here. Has anyone ever wonder if there was anything/existence before the big bang occured?.

What if there was an entire universe filled with thriving existence all throughout it, than some massive event totaled it? Can the universe implode somehow?
I dunno, it's rather late and I'm tired. Haven't really thought this through, but what are your thoughts on this?

[Hvyarms]

Lookup the Big "crunch" theory on the net I'm sure you'll find the answer to your question. Some theorize it as being possible that it crunches and bangs and oscilates... im sure we will never know especially in our lifetime so always fun to think /shrug.

[lazserus]

There are a few theories that suggest a cyclical life for the universe where it explodes in a big bang, loses momentum, then collapses back into a big crunch. However, those theories are mostly shunned now-a-days because all evidence supports an accelerating, expanding universe. Thus, there was nothing prior to the big bang. The big bang was what started everything.

[Coolio]

but before the big bang there was nothing right? then whats nothing? can u explain what it is? ive always had that tought.

[Hvyarms]

It cant be explained via modern science for all that I've read. To clarify, You cant create or destroy energy... everything had to have existed via our rules and laws so before the "big bang" the energy that took place in it still existed... meaning it had to have gotten there somehow... UNLESS we humans think substandardly. Does everything really have a beginning or an end? Is there really time or is it something we create. What if everything always existed becuase there was no beginning too it, and there will be no end. What if it just changes forms over and over but its always been there and didnt need to be created because it was just there. The problem is its really hard for us as creatures to think beyond our cyclical thinking. Saying there is always a beginning or an end to things most likely is wrong.

Lets say the only thing that existed before the big bang was an omnipotent being... then he created the matter and then the big bang occured... Ok by that logic how did the being get there in the first place and what was HE made of. There is no end.... or beginning to this thinking... If your looking for a reason or an actual truth to how things happened you will be looking for a long long time. Smart men have wasted away their lives pondering this and never comming to a realization that can be proven or even logically proven. In my opinion its better to just not worry so much about it, what matters is we ARE here and how we got here is irrelavent. We are here and we have to choose what to do with the time we are given.

[Coolio]

yeah, there was energy, but it wasnt big, so all the uncovered space what was it? thats what i meant if energy was "comrpessed" what was further away?

[marglarg]

There is a most excellent book I've read by Brian Greene titled "The Elegant Universe". It's a very good introduction to String Theory, where it came from and where it is at the moment. It also gives an a very informative introduction to the theory of gravity, initially from Newtons' perspective through to Einsteins General Theory of Relativity. I recommend it if your truly are interested in this topic. Sounds a bit of topic I know but it does touch on how the universe may have originated.

There is also an official String Theory web site which contains a tad of information re your question ...

http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/index.html


Anyone else out there read this book ? To tell the truth I actually read it three times :)

As far as what I think came before the big bang .. wouldn't have a clue :yikes:

Still interested ... if you have a few hours check out the videos from this site. Loved em :)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

[lazserus]

Time was created with the big bang, thus the idea of "before" the big bang is mute. Time is not an abstract concept, merely created by the imaginations of mortal men, but is a measurable component of the universe. Time isn't a physical object, but is an effect. You'll never find physical evidence to support or picture a "before". Remember, the word before is an arbitrary measurement of time. Asking what happened or existed before time is illogical and has no solution. When you back up further than the birth of existence then you're just touching up on philosophy.

marglarg, I have "The Elegant Universe", but I haven't read it all the way through. It starts off rather slow. I need to find it and continue reading it.

[prezhorusin04]

Laz:
Time was created with the big bang, thus the idea of "before" the big bang is mute. Time is not an abstract concept, merely created by the imaginations of mortal men, but is a measurable component of the universe. Time isn't a physical object, but is an effect. You'll never find physical evidence to support or picture a "before". Remember, the word before is an arbitrary measurement of time. Asking what happened or existed before time is illogical and has no solution. When you back up further than the birth of existence then you're just touching up on philosophy.
-----

Laz, i see what you're saying, but if the bang in a sense is what created time, then before the bang would have been "the time without time". Yes, it's a philosophical area, but without the philosophy, the science might not have been born. Didn't Einstein say "Imagination is more important then knowledge." ?I'll say atleast imagination is equal to knowledge, because it is our imagination and questions, that might eventually lead us to answers.

I've stated my theory on the "bigbang/bigcrunch" here before, and it involves the functions of black holes on both ends of the spectrum. But that's a long and wordy hypothesis.

[lazserus]

I'm not by any means saying science is absent of philosophy. However, when you try to PROVE science with philosophy you end up with nothing more than a figment of your imagination with no observable or substantial evidence.

[prezhorusin04]

i'm not trying to prove science with philosophy, but if we can say, yes there was a big bang, and this is what happened at the big bang when the universe was forming, then we can go to the point of the big bang and before, and at this point, that is a somewhat philosphical matter.

i don't think we will make the right discoveries if we don't meet the challenge in the mind of philosophy, science, art, mahematics and maybe even a bit of a religious understanding, . And all of these things used together will bring a better harmony of the soul, and better understanding of the questions we wish to answer.

I understand your passion for scientific evidence and measurable truth. Theories must be able to be tested and proven as a possible scenerio. But keep in mind that black holes were only theory until recently, and even now there are many who still want more evidence.

The theory of the black hole actually originated with an episode of the old Star Trek (i'm not a freakin trekkie!) in which they called it a dark star. Shortly after, the black hole theory was introduced.Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The imagination ofr the fact?

[lazserus]

But keep in mind that black holes were only theory until recently, and even now there are many who still want more evidence.
All science is theory, and those who want MORE evidence are the same who argue against such sciences as evolution. The evidence is astoundingly accurate.

The theory of the black hole actually originated with an episode of the old Star Trek (i'm not a freakin trekkie!) in which they called it a dark star. Shortly after, the black hole theory was introduced.
This is completely false. The first theory of the dark star was conjectured by John Michell in 1783. I'm sorry, but that was long before Star Trek. His theory was consistent with Newtonian gravity and the original theory that light was a particle and not a wave. It being a particle supported that it was effected by gravitational mass, thus being drawn in by extreme gravitational fields. The term 'black hole' wasn't coined until 1969 by John Wheeler.

[prezhorusin04]

no it's not all false Laz. Iv'e read the practices of John Michell and i don't believe he ever gave a name to the term. Sadly, for the genius Michell was, Star Trek did more to expound his theory as it renewed interest in the concepts he was trying to convey..

And there still are hundreds of millions of people who don't believe black holes are even real, though there is now more valid scientific proof to support it..

Here is a site i like:
http://www2.exnet.com/1996/02/20/science/science.html

John Michell (1724 – April 29, 1793) was an English natural philosopher and geologist, whose work was rediscovered in the 1970s. It appeared that John Michell was the first to consider a heavenly object massive enough to prevent light from escaping it (the concept of escape velocity was well known at the time). Such an object would thus be invisible, nowadays called a black hole. Michell therefore contemplated the idea of a black hole before the mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace promoted the same idea in his book Exposition du Systeme du Monde in 1796.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell

[lazserus]

I can't believe I'm having this argument. Considering that majority of the research done in the development of black holes was done in the early 20th century alone tells you it has NOTHING to do with Star Trek. Just the idea that a fictional sci-fi soap opera originated the theory of black holes is complete and utter ignorance.

1783: Michell submits a paper on "dark stars" to the Royal Society in London. A few years later Pierre Laplace publishes a theory based on Michell's original paper.

1915: Einstein publishes his paper on GR and provides the equations to further entice black hole supporters.

1916: Karl Schwarzchild publishes a paper on the boundaries of black holes and introduces the singularity.

1932: Chandrasekhar conjectures that a stellar object with more than 1.44 solar masses will collapse indefinitely. This will continue until collapsing into a singularity unless there exists the appropriate degeneracy pressure.

1939: The first actual theory of black holes is written by Robert Oppenheimer.

1968: John Wheeler coins the term "black hole".

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/BlackHoleHistory.html
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~bon/kerrhistory.html
http://hoku.as.utexas.edu/~gebhardt/a309s03/lect1bh.html

All of these links were found within 60 seconds of searching on google. Considering the first episode of Star Trek didn't air until 1966 I think it's safe to assume they weren't apart of the developmental process of the black hole theory.

:hater:

[dcookcan]

I'm not by any means saying science is absent of philosophy. However, when you try to PROVE science with philosophy you end up with nothing more than a figment of your imagination with no observable or substantial evidence.

Science is philosophy, that is why the ultimate science degree is the Ph.D. - Doctor of Philosophy.

When you enter the realm of Astrophysics, you are embarking on a journey into pure philosophy. Theory is built on theory after theory after theory... the theories are possible, but not provable. Philosophy at its finest.


All science is theory, and those who want MORE evidence are the same who argue against such sciences as evolution. The evidence is astoundingly accurate.

Those who say that evolution is astoundingly accurate have closed their minds to the evidence that exists for creation and a young earth.

[lazserus]

Those who say that evolution is astoundingly accurate have closed their minds to the evidence that exists for creation and a young earth.
That's exactly right. You can't support both. However, considering the irrefutable evidence supporting biological evolution and the complete lack of evidence supporting a young Earth, I think it's a safer bet to follow observable scientific theory than to chase fairytales.

But, if you're a creation "scientist" then you'd get a kick out of this thread.

http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=313

Now, back to the topic at hand.

/me tips his hat.

[dcookcan]

considering the irrefutable evidence supporting biological evolution and the complete lack of evidence supporting a young Earth

That is where you have a closed mind my friend. Evolution is refutable and evidence exists for a young earth.

I will read through the thread you provided and post my two cents there later. Sorry for corrupting the topic of this thread.

[lazserus]

The evidence for a young Earth is just as substantial as an Aristotelian cosmology. :abduct:

[Zach]

Well, i didnt know where else to put this so i put it here.

In school, we learned the theory that the big bang has happened atleast 7 times before(how they got this number, i dont know). We learned that the process is one where the universe starts out about the size of a marble, then expands, reaches a point, and then contracts back into the original size.

My question had to do with this theory. If the universe really does contract back into the marble size, then what happens to everything in the universe. If the universe was compacted into such a small size, how would everything fit in the small area, what would happen to life(we are all bigger than marbles) and what makes us think this happens. I mean, wouldnt there have to be something outside of the universe to have to force it to retreat to such a small size.

Sorry if any of this is confusing.

[lazserus]

I'm curious to know what class you learned this in. According to quantum theory we can only measure as far back as 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. And the cycle does not include a universe the size of a marble, but that of a singularity - a point in space-time with infinite density, where the laws of physics break down. There's no proof or valid theory of a cyclical universe. Especially now that we've noticed the accelerated expansion of the universe and that, even calculating dark matter, there's just not enough mass carrying matter in the universe to slow down the expansion. Even with the observable universe there's not NEAR enough matter out there to surpass the Hubble constant. Due to that there's not enough matter in the universe to provide the gravity to slow down the momentum of the expansion, a cyclical universe/universes is more a philisophical idea than it is concrete scientific theory.

[Zach]

i guess that makes sense. I learned it in a 8th grade class a couple of years ago and i have always wondered how the hell they would get those answers(just found this sight yesterday). So thanks for the info.

[Druadan]

I've no education in the field of astrophysics. My physics goes up to my A* at GCSE, I'm a Politics, Computing, and History student now. But I've always thought of the Big Bang not as THE Big Bang, but one of many happening all over the universe. Let me explain what I'm saying. Bear in mind there may well be a lot of evidence to say I'm talking crap, but don't discredit it unless it is actually evidence please.

Okay, so we've got black holes. As I understand it, these can't actually have INFINITE mass, otherwise they would have infinite gravity and I wouldn't be sat here typing this. Therefore they must have a range, by which I mean a distance within which they start to pull things towards them. Now when a black hole pulls all the matter in its range in and there is nothing left, it has all this basic energy compressed in its centre, and nothing left to pull in. What if, when that happens, the black hole destabilises or inverts or explodes (or any other word you want to ascribe to what I'm saying) and all of this energy, like that which was released at the Big Bang, is pushed out and expands outwards, forming the same behaviour as we take the Big Bang to have lead to.
If this is true, then there are Big Bangs happening all over the universe, and if the universe is infinite in volume and life, then there is just a continuous and infinite cycle of big bangs happening all over this infinite expanse of space, as has happened for an infinite amount of time before now, and will continue to happen for an infinite amount of time afterwards.

Is that possible or am I talking tripe? :D

[lazserus]

You're confused about black holes having infinite mass. It has infinite density within the singularity. The mass of a black hole is directly relative to that of the mass of the object prior to collapse. And black holes don't suck in matter any more than a star would. If our star collapsed into a black hole we'd feel absolutely no change in gravity.