What came before the Big Bang?

[Ouroboros]

Since time is merely sequencing, most cosmologists that I have read believe that there was likely some activity
prior to the BB, but it would be immensely slow because of the mass involved. Therefore, the concept that "time began at the BB" appears to be slightly exaggerated, but not by much.

And "beginning" the same way as "log(x)" for x->0 goes -∞. It's a limit rather than a point. Just like the black holes supposedly goes to singularity where time becomes infinite. Sometin' like that... I'm no expert.

 

[metis]

And "beginning" the same way as "log(x)" for x->0 goes -∞. It's a limit rather than a point. Just like the black holes supposedly goes to singularity where time becomes infinite. Sometin' like that... I'm no expert.

Ditto, and good point-- I think.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ditto, and good point-- I think.

Limits in calculus. lim(log(x)) x->0 goes to -infinity. Time in the beginning at time 0, but with an infinite "past".

Like this:

It keeps on going down, down, down... the closer you get to zero, but log(0) is in itself undefined.

 

[metis]

Limits in calculus. lim(log(x)) x->0 goes to -infinity. Time in the beginning at time 0, but with an infinite "past".

Like this:

Thanks for this as I'm calculus-challenged.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Limits in calculus.

Improper limits (asymptotic). The big bang theory actually involves a limiting process of sorts. Informally, you just run the clock back until it can't be run back anymore. A bit before that, all reality as we know it came to be. There was no time, no space, no anything. And then from an impossibility (the laws of physics break down entirely before we even run back to the big bang itself) we have spacetime.

 

[Ouroboros]

Improper limits (asymptotic). The big bang theory actually involves a limiting process of sorts. Informally, you just run the clock back until it can't be run back anymore. A bit before that, all reality as we know it came to be. There was no time, no space, no anything. And then from an impossibility (the laws of physics break down entirely before we even run back to the big bang itself) we have spacetime.

You're most likely right since I'm not sure anymore exactly what is and what isn't when it comes to big bang.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Since time is merely sequencing

It isn't. Hence 4th dimensional geometry and relativistic physics. This has been experimentally shown.

most cosmologists that I have read believe that there was likely some activity
prior to the BB, but it would be immensely slow because of the mass involved.

A point (singularity) with no volume and no time. I think the following passage sums it up pretty well:
“This theory, called the Big Bang theory, postulates that starting from the singularity the Universe expanded so creating space and also creating time. Like any sensible person you will ask the question, “What was the state of affairs before the Big Bang?”, to which you will receive the answer, “There is no such thing as before the Big Bang because time did not exist until the Big Bang occurred.” p. 66
Woolfson, M. M. (2009). Time, Space, Stars, and Man: The Story of the Big Bang. London: Imperial College Press.

I thought I did. From Professsor Michael Woolfson's Time, Space, Stars, and Man: The Story of the Big Bang (Imperial College Press, 2009): "This observationally-based conclusion has led to the current theory that most, but not all, astronomers accept for the origin of the Universe- that at some point in the past all the energy in the Universe was concentrated at a point, a point with no volume that scientists refer to as a singuilarity. That is a challenging idea. The implication of it is that, at the instant the Universe came into being, space did not exist and time did not exist! Once again we are in the position that we cannot imagine or understand what this means. Try the following experiement- close your eyes and try to think of nothing- absolutely nothing. You can no more do this than we can properly understand- really understand- a Universe of zero volume in which time did not exists. This theory, called the Big Bang thoery, postulates that starting from the singularity the Universe expanded so creating space and time. Like any sensible person you will ask the question, "What was the state of affairs before the Big Bang?", to which you will receive the answer, "There is no such thing as before the Big Bang because time did not exist until the Big Bang occured." You might try again with the question, "Into what did the Universe expand?", to which the answer is, "There was no space for the Universe to expand into since the only space that existed was what it created as it expanded...Remember, once the Universe came into being and began to expand, then it is possible to talk about time" [italics in original, emphases added]. p.66



No I've read enough Stephen Hawking to know his views. From The Nature of Space and Time By Hawking and Penrose (Princeton University Press, 1996): "Indeed, almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang." He (and Penrose) have both discussed other possibilities, including the existance of multiple singularities, multiple universes, etc. However, one then leaves the theory of the big bang behind.



I'm not presuming it. That's the theory. And as Woolfson notes, it is hard to understand. The "something" which expanded, this singularity, was nothing. As Paul Lurquin puts it in his book Origins of Life and the Universe (Columbia University Press, 2003), this we are talking about "a universe beginning with a singularity characterized by zero space" So a point of zero space which isn't in space and neither space nor time exist. Norman Glennding titled the first chapter of his book Our Place in the Universe (World Scientific, 2007) "A Day without Yesterday" for a reason: "In an instant of creation about 14 billion years ago the universe burst forth, creating space where there was no space, and time when there was no time."

 

[Thief]

Since time is merely sequencing, most cosmologists that I have read believe that there was likely some activity
prior to the BB, but it would be immensely slow because of the mass involved. Therefore, the concept that "time began at the BB" appears to be slightly exaggerated, but not by much.

Nay....

The point of singularity would not be of mass or space.

It would be the void.

With no secondary 'point' there is no space.
With inception of a secondary....space and infinity occur.

It would be correct to say movement begins with the secondary.
But without vector.

 

[Slapstick]

I don’t see how anyone can determine that the universe is either, A) expanding or contracting, or B) has a beginning based on two celestial bodies (galaxies) moving away from each other. There have been instances when two or more galaxies actually collide or merge. So this basically tells me one of two things about the universe, that the universe is in a constant state of fluctuations and it wouldn’t be possible to determine the start of something that possibly has more dimensions than we are aware of.

It also makes me think that time isn’t measured the same way in other parts of the universe as it is here. Meaning our understanding of time would not necessarily reflect that of the universe.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don’t see how anyone can determine that the universe is either, A) expanding or contracting

Hubble's law, background radiation, and cosmic homogeneity.

or B) has a beginning based on two celestial bodies (galaxies) moving away from each other.

It isn't based on this.

It also makes me think that time isn’t measured the same way in other parts of the universe as it is here.

There is no preferred frame of reference, but in all reference frames time is measured in the same way.

 

[Thief]

I don’t see how anyone can determine that the universe is either, A) expanding or contracting, or B) has a beginning based on two celestial bodies (galaxies) moving away from each other. There have been instances when two or more galaxies actually collide or merge. So this basically tells me one of two things about the universe, that the universe is in a constant state of fluctuations and it wouldn’t be possible to determine the start of something that possibly has more dimensions than we are aware of.

It also makes me think that time isn’t measured the same way in other parts of the universe as it is here. Meaning our understanding of time would not necessarily reflect that of the universe.

This might be easier if you were using the word 'movement' in place of time on each occasion.

 

[Slapstick]

So I guess the universe will eventually expand itself out of exist then. That's nice.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So I guess the universe will eventually expand itself out of exist then.

Not exactly. If you recall from a previous response to an inquiry of yours:

"At present cosmological epoch, stars provide most of the energy that is generated, and they will continue to shine in this leading role for trillions of years. We are thus in the midst of an age of stars, called the Stelliferous Era, when the energy is produced through thermonuclear fusion in stellar cores. This era began sometime after the universe was a million years old, and will continue for several trillion years. After this time, the galaxies will run out of gas to make new stars, and the existing stars will exhaust their supply of hydrogen fuel.With no more nuclear burning stars, the universe will change its character again, and grow much darker.
After the stars have burned out, the remnants they leave behind will be the primary stellar bodies in the universe. These entities include brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. Since the first three types of remnants are supported by quantum mechanical degeneracy pressure, this future epoch is often called the Degenerate Era. During this future time period, the universe remains active: white dwarfs capture Dark Matter particles, brown dwarfs collide to make new stars, white dwarfs collide to ignite supernovae, galactic disks evaporate, and the Dark Matter halos eventually annihilate. This era draws to a close when the universe becomes old enough for protons to decay, at a future epoch more than

years from now. All of the degenerate stellar remnants lose their mass through proton decay and eventually fade into nothingness.
Black holes are the only stellar objects that survive the dilapidation enforced by proton decay, and they inherit the universe during the subsequent Black Hole Era. In the darkness of this future epoch, the radiation produced by black holes through the Hawking mechanism powers the universe. As the black holes shine, they also lose mass, and must eventually evaporate. The largest black holes live the longest. But after

years, all of them will have made their explosive exits, and the universe changes its character once again.
After the black holes are gone, no stellar objects of any kind are left to light up the skies. Only the leftover waste products from the previous eras remain, and the universe slides into its Dark Era. The cosmic inventory is now extremely sparse, containing electrons, positrons, neutrinos, Dark Matter particles, and photons of stupendously long wavelengths. In the Primordial Era, the universe contained no stars – only particles – because it was too hot and too young. In the Dark Era in our distant future, the universe again has no stars – and only particles – because it is too cold and too old. These endpoints frame the story of our universe: Instead of evolving from ashes to ashes, or dust to dust, the cosmic timeline runs from particles to particles."

Adams, F. C. (2012). The Future History of the Universe. Cosmic Update (Multiversal Journeys)Springer Science + Business Media.

 

[Slapstick]

I remember that post. It was awhile ago. Do you have the link to the thread. If not I will find it. All I can think about right now is ambient vibrations creating energy for some reason.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Do you have the link to the thread

Sure: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-technology/154054-does-universe-evolve.html

 

[Slapstick]

Sure: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-technology/154054-does-universe-evolve.html

Yeah I blame Revoltingest for making think about the Multiverse.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yeah I blame Revoltingest for making think about the Multiverse.

I started a thread about blaming him: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ories/136258-batman-s-blame-revoltingest.html

 

[metis]

Nay....

The point of singularity would not be of mass or space.

It would be the void.

This doesn't jive with the cosmologists that I have read if I understand you correctly. They have posited that our entire universe was probably about the size of a present-day atom, unbelievably hot, with an immense mass that highly restricted movement and even time itself.

One of the cosmological hypotheses I've run across, and I think it's from either Susskind or Kaku, is that even within this singularity, some charges may have gotten too close, repelled, thus creating actually two quick expansions a micro-second apart. IOW, the bonds that kept this dense "ball" together began to break apart, and viola! M-Theory has it that it may have been a couple of huge "membranes" may have rubbed across each other, spinning of the little speck that became our universe.

Of the research cosmologists I've read, none of them posited that this tiny speck was a void. But who knows?

 

[YmirGF]

Of the research cosmologists I've read, none of them posited that this tiny speck was a void. But who knows?

*nods*

I've never heard it referred to as a void either. I suppose one could call it a void, but unfortunately that would require adding a new definition to the term.

 

[Ouroboros]

Of the research cosmologists I've read, none of them posited that this tiny speck was a void. But who knows?

Yeah. A void doesn't make sense at all. A void is when a space is empty. But if space didn't exist, there wasn't any void to be had.