Time before the big bang

[Skynet12]

ok, basic physics 101~for summit 2 happen, u need to 'unfreeze' it, or it will never happen, for example, a stopwatch will not record the time of a race if it is not on. So what of the big bang theory? Science says time did not exist before the big bang, and that the 'infinute density' object exploded to create the stars, chemicals and planets we know of today. But, if there was no time, therefore, no actual place for the event to happen, how did it happen? Basically, if time did't exist, how the hell did the big bang happen? If there was no time, surly it would just have been, well, 'still', and there would be no place in time for it to happen, because time itself did not exist! IfAny1 here knows the answer to put me out of my misery, please do reply!

[lycanox]

I like to think its our time that didn't exist. but there was time in the area where the singularity formed.

[Astroboy]

Awsome put of wordings! This kind of questions we should think about. Got to ask those questions to the Preists, Christians and Nuns!

[infinant plague]

thats why i dont have faith in the big bang theory.

to much to process and it doesn't make any sense at all.

no time = no explosian

also if everything was in this big universal rock...how does something blow up the rock and what does the rock have on it?

the whole theory is bogus in my opinion.

[Skynet12]

Could be the answer, but what other sub-solid theories are there where time exists already?

[Britannia]

thats why i dont have faith in the big bang theory.

to much to process and it doesn't make any sense at all.

no time = no explosian

also if everything was in this big universal rock...how does something blow up the rock and what does the rock have on it?

the whole theory is bogus in my opinion.

There was no 'rock' to begin with, the 'big bang' created chemicals an elements which led to the formation of substances.

[Skynet12]

Like a nebula composed of formin substances?

[Cornish Maid]

17 December 2005
Cycles of creation
16 March 2002
Search New Scientist
Contact us
Web Links
Paul Steinhardt, Princeton University, New Jersey
Neil Turok, Cambridge University, UK
Alexander Vilenkin, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
The Cyclic Universe Model, Princeton University
A cyclic universe, which bounces through a series of big bangs and "big crunches", could solve the puzzle of our cosmological constant, physicists suggest.

The cosmological constant represents the energy of empty space, and is thought to be the most likely explanation for the observed speeding up of the expansion of the universe. But its measured value is a googol (1 followed by 100 zeroes) times smaller than that predicted by particle physics theories. It is a discrepancy that gives cosmologists a real headache.

In the 1980s, physicists considered the possibility that an initially large cosmological constant could decay down to the value measured today. But this theory was abandoned when calculations showed that it would take far longer than 14 billion years – the time since the big bang – for the constant to reach the level seen today.

Now physicists Paul Steinhardt at Princeton University, in New Jersey, US, and Neil Turok at Cambridge University in the UK, are resurrecting the idea. They point out that if time stretches back beyond the big bang, the problem could be solved. At that is just what is predicted by their cyclic model of the universe – an alternative to the Standard Big Bang theory – which the pair first developed in 2002 (see "Cycles of creation").

Endless cycle
"Ever since the 1960s, people assumed that the big bang was the beginning of time, because the laws of physics seem to break down there," says Turok. But the equations of string theory tell a different story, allowing time to exist before the big bang, he says.

According to Steinhardt and Turok, today's universe is part of an endless cycle of big bangs and big crunches, with each cycle lasting about a trillion years. At every big bang, the amount of matter and radiation in the universe is reset, but the cosmological constant is not. Instead, the cosmological constant gradually diminishes over many cycles to the small value observed today.

The physicists' calculations show that the cosmological constant decreases in steps, through a series of quantum transitions. Crucially, the higher the value of the constant, the more rapid the transitions, says Turok. But as the constant reaches lower levels, it changes more slowly, lingering on the lowest positive value for an extremely long time. That means that today's universe is most likely to have a small cosmological constant, just as we currently observe, says Turok.

"This is an ingenious solution," says cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, US. But he points out that there are other cosmic coincidences that the cyclic model cannot explain, like why the size of the cosmological constant is so similar to the density of matter in the universe today.

Turok says that he and Steinhardt will be looking at that problem next. "This is an initial attempt to go beyond Einstein's theory of gravity," says Turok. "It would be surprising if we solved everything first time."

Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1126231)

[liberdave]

Right...


To make a really long story short, imagine time as a plane, like the X, Y, or Z planes. Time did not exist pre-Big Bang according to the theory. Just like "space" didn't exist before the Big Bang. So asking what happened pre-Big Bang is like asking "How wide is 2 hours?".

[Skynet12]

I got u, so it's basically an erroneous question?

[Perfectionist]

God created the Big Bang ..... problem solved !!

[Strife]

I question fantasy sometimes too, for fun.

[liberdave]

I got u, so it's basically an erroneous question?

Yeah, in my opinion it is an illogical question.

[lazserus]

The cyclical theory has been argued for quite a long time, but there are still figures that don't add up. Consider the Hubble constant and the significant red shift of nearby celestial bodies. In theory, after 14 billion years, the energy of the momentum would be lost and gravity would set in, thus nearby bodies would be blue shifted, not red shifted. Most theories point to an accelerated expansion of the universe, not the contrary. Therefore it's not likely there's going to be a contraction or a "Big Crunch". And for those of you who don't believe in the Big Bang theory, consider the Cosmic Microwave Background, observable evidence for a hot Big Bang model.

Now, since the beginning of the concept of singularities by Roger Penrose, and adapation by Stephen Hawking, it has been said that the laws of physics break down inside one. That means no time as well.

So asking what happened pre-Big Bang is like asking "How wide is 2 hours?".

That's a great statement.

Now, keep in mind the theory of singularities is purely mathematical, yet follows perfectly with General Relativity, which is supported daily. We can't even observe naked singularities.

[Skynet12]

Well observed, lazserous.

[lazserus]

And for those of you who haven't noticed or never seen it, my avatar is a 3-dimensional Big Bang model that shows the universe cooling to its present state.

[dayll]

I have to laugh at the attempts at authoritative answers here; however, the only applicable fact regarding the nature of the pre-Big Bang / pre-time question is that we are not intellectually geared to formulate such a construct. A scientist can no more elucidate such a mystery than a theologian/priest can explain god. Somethings we just have to leave off as unanswerable, at least for now. Far better to admit ignorance than to make false assertions just so you can either 1- Feel smug. 2- sleep at night.
dayll

[Philosopher Foelhe]

the only applicable fact regarding the nature of the pre-Big Bang / pre-time question is that we are not intellectually geared to formulate such a construct. A scientist can no more elucidate such a mystery than a theologian/priest can explain god.

... But wouldn't that make the Big Bang a faith, rather than a theory of science?

[lazserus]

... But wouldn't that make the Big Bang a faith, rather than a theory of science?

The big bang is a very strong theory with countless evidence supporting it. What happened before is completely irrelevant and has absolutely no scientific gain. Due to the fact the laws of science break down in the singularity, no predictions can be made, thus is useless to science as we know it. Keep in mind dayll said "pre-big bang/pre-time", not the actual moment and the time directly following.

[Ningishiddza]

What happened before is completely irrelevant and has absolutely no scientific gain. Due to the fact the laws of science break down in the singularity, no predictions can be made, thus is useless to science as we know it.

I'm not entirely sure about that. Admittedly I have a hard time grasping the concept, but as I understand it, the universe collapses and ultimately becomes a singularity, (equal to what? the size of the head of a pin?) due to immense gravity, then suddenly explodes to form a new, or another universe.

What, exactly, surrounds the singularity? Space? Time? Anti-Space or Anti-Time?

It seems to me that most everything seems to be yin-yang oriented. Would there be an anti-singularity?

Theoretically, couldn't a black-hole form its own universe since its nothing more than a large singularity?

I have a theory that Einstein lied. He pushed for development and use of the "atom bomb" then regretted it. As a result, I believe he may have modified some of his other theories, thinking that at some point in the distant future, someone will discover the error(s), and at that time mankind would be ready to use the knowledge for purposes other than weapons.

[Perfectionist]

Never thought about it ..... but you could be right !!

Einstein was afterall a genius !!

[lazserus]

Theoretically, couldn't a black-hole form its own universe since its nothing more than a large singularity?

Hawking and others have definitely conjectured this possibility. However, it is more along the lines of metaphysics.

I have a theory that Einstein lied. He pushed for development and use of the "atom bomb" then regretted it. As a result, I believe he may have modified some of his other theories, thinking that at some point in the distant future, someone will discover the error(s), and at that time mankind would be ready to use the knowledge for purposes other than weapons.

That's an interesting conspiracy theory. However, it has no merit. Einstein published General Relativity in 1915. Using that theory many things were predicted. Alexander Friedmann came up with a model for the universe, George Gamow developed a model of a white hot early universe, Einstein's theories predicted the bending of light around large masses (which has been observed on plenty of occasions.), we got into space based on GR. His theory of General Relativity isn't a lie, because everything predicted by that theory is observed over and over again. Plus, the atom bomb dealt in the field of quantum theory, which Einstein received the Nobel Prize for and devoted the rest of his life to.

[Ningishiddza]

His theory of General Relativity isn't a lie, because everything predicted by that theory is observed over and over again.

My bad, I was actually referring to his Unified Theory, and a few others which he never completed. I thought I read where someone followed up and developed a solution for the Unified Theory, but don't know for sure.

[liberdave]

I'm not entirely sure about that. Admittedly I have a hard time grasping the concept, but as I understand it, the universe collapses and ultimately becomes a singularity, (equal to what? the size of the head of a pin?) due to immense gravity, then suddenly explodes to form a new, or another universe.

I assume you are talking about the Big Crunch model here. Now remember, an observer who is still inside the crunch might not experience a "crunch" since all measurable space is within said "crunch field". So to an outside observer, you'd indeed see our universe collapse, but an inside observer might not notice incredibly much.

What, exactly, surrounds the singularity? Space? Time? Anti-Space or Anti-Time?

Which singularity? The one our universe crunches into? Who the hell knows? It's a singularity. Unable to communicate across. It could be blue penut-butter for all physicists know! However, I have seen theories that our universe is NOT a singularity and indeed transdimensional foam is constantly seeping into our universe. This foam is actually flying in the face of a lot of traditional physicists because it could actually be the source of gravity! (Not large masses) Instead of being pulled toward a large body by gravity, you are being pushed by the foam. Imagine being pushed by the foam towards Earth because the Earth is blocking the foam on the "other side" of the planet, but not blocking the foam that's pushing down on top of you from the rest of the universe. The balance of extra pressure on top keeps your feet planted on terra. Neat idea huh?

It seems to me that most everything seems to be yin-yang oriented. Would there be an anti-singularity?

Is it called our universe?

Theoretically, couldn't a black-hole form its own universe since its nothing more than a large singularity?

Absolutely.

Plus, the atom bomb dealt in the field of quantum theory, which Einstein received the Nobel Prize for and devoted the rest of his life to.

Just to clarify, Einstein actually hated Quantum Theory. He hated it so much, he spent the rest of his life trying to prove it wrong. He made the first real attempt at the Grand Unification Theory, but failed.

He hated Quantum Theory so much, that after the Copenhagen Interpretation, he wrote Max Born, and said "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." The throw dice part is in reference to the randomness predicted by quantum theory. i.e. probability feilds of electrons, instead of nice, clean orbits around the nucleus etc.

[lazserus]

My bad, I was actually referring to his Unified Theory, and a few others which he never completed. I thought I read where someone followed up and developed a solution for the Unified Theory, but don't know for sure.

There is not GUT. In order for GR to match QM there needs to be a theory of quantum gravity. That is the hole that separates the two major theories of the universe. Currently physicists are hoping superstring theory will provide that answer. Unfortunately string theory is incomplete, mainly because there are several different kinds of string theory:

1. Bosonic
2. Type I
3. Type II
4. Type IIA
5. Type IIB
6. HO
7. HE

Bosonic string theory is probably the most ridiculous and is mostly overlooked now a days. Firstly, it only concentrates on bosons and completely ignores fermions. Basically, that means bosonic string theory denies matter actually exists. It also requires the use of an imaginary particle called the tachyon. The other theories are plausible, but the mathematics aren't complete. Currently, mathematicians are working on M theory. It's basically a combination of a few types. Now, if we can ever prove M theory mathematically, then back it up with some form of observable experiment, then there will be no more use for singularities.

So to an outside observer, you'd indeed see our universe collapse, but an inside observer might not notice incredibly much.

This example is best used when dealing with a black hole. The process is still the same, just on a much smaller scale. Basically, the reason I would never use this example is the fact of an "outside" observer to our universe. In cosmological terms, the universe is thought to be a finite or infinite space-time continuum in which all matter and energy exist. Therefore it is everything. How do you stand outside of everything? I mean, what liberdave is saying is correct. An outside observer would notice something long before the internal observer. An outside observer would notice an increase in red shift until he saw nothing anymore. An inside observer wouldn't notice much until a critical point, then he would basically be torn apart by tidal forces.

However, I have seen theories that our universe is NOT a singularity and indeed transdimensional foam is constantly seeping into our universe.

I've heard of this theory and I think it's even less viable than the theory of the gravistar. I can just see it: A bunch of Spelljammer players are sitting around and saying, "I know, let's use magic to describe gravity and then try to explain it with mathematics!"

Is it called our universe?

Makes perfect sense to me. If a singularity is a point in space-time where matter is infinitely compressed and dense, then the universe would have to be the opposite.

Just to clarify, Einstein actually hated Quantum Theory. He hated it so much, he spent the rest of his life trying to prove it wrong. He made the first real attempt at the Grand Unification Theory, but failed.

Ah, but Einstein's biggest problem with QM was Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Other aspects of QT he was all for. And the all famous, "God does not roll dice." He absolutely hated the idea that the universe was governed by chance. However, there are other things to consider here. When Einstein developed GR he was so hell bent on a static, infinite, unchanging universe that he modified his own theory due to the result of its predictions. According to GR, the universe should have started at a singularity and expanded and continue to expand eternally. Therefore, Einstein added an imaginary constant to keep his static universe in order. This was the cosmological constant. Later Einstein went on record to say that it was the single biggest mistake of his career. Granted, we now believe that cosmological constant must exist in order to explain what we observe today. However, that constant has been modified considerably to act completely different from Einstein's original plan.

Basically, just because Einstein detested the idea of the universe being governed by chance, he still did some excellent work in the field that earned him a Nobel Prize. I've even heard rumors that after he completed GR he said he didn't actually believe his own theory. I believe Einstein just didn't like the fact that his theory of GR and his work in QT took work out of God's hands.