What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

Well, I agree that it seems pretty non-sensical.
I always try to leave the door open for somebody to justify his claims, because maybe there actually is a way to make sense of such a weird proposition, so I'm entirely willing to let him explain himself.
After all, I would wish the same degree of curtecy given to me, when I say something that other people consider invalide.

Of course. But you need to go a few rounds with good old Thief to see what I am saying. For example, ask him what God speaking 'I Am' causes. I consider him quite an oddball with whom no truly rational discussion is possible. My best wishes should you wish to pursue a 'discussion' with him.

 

[suncowiam]

To ask what came "before" the big bang is non-sensical.
It's like asking what's north of the north-pole.
Given that our current understanding about the big bang also includes the idea that time started with the big bang, to think about something that came "before" misses the point. How could there be a "before", before there was time?

Yes, the big bang and the origin of the universe is probably the most un-intuitive thing one can possible talk about! All the laws we take for granted as being part of this universe don't (necessarily) apply anymore... a concept we simply can't grasp.
That's why it always baffles me, when people explain that a god has caused this universe to exist.

Seriously, the professional cosmologists, the guys who study these things, are having trouble to grasp what's going on beyond the plank-wall... and yet we have people who, without having any training or education on the subject, not only tell us that they believe that there is a god beyond this point, but they often also claim that there HAS to be a god there! Because it's the only thing that makes sense!
No, the clear answer when it comes to the origin of the universe so far is "We don't know".

I don't believe asking this question is being non-sensical. Something initiated the big bang and unfortunately, it is currently outside our understanding. But I believe it is definitely is a valid question to ask. It is the same question to ask concerning what came before God when one defines God.

Well, string theory adds several more dimensions over time to easily suggest that our universe is on of many. I can't really go further with this as there various string theories and no one is converging at least last I checked.

It's plausible for us to be limited by time and space but not so sure that time and space are limits for everything in our universe and beyond.

But I agree: "we don't know" =)

 

[`mud]

We've all come to this point here many times before.
First...erase the "Big Bang" scenerio, and try to understand what 'infinity' means.
Infinity is the end of the beginning at the origin of the cyclonic curve in which we live.
This "Big Bang" is just another "spark" in the wildfire caused by the roaring cauldren of the Cosmos.
There are uncounted trillions of these sparks amongst the Cosmos, they are almost endless in age, and we can't pretend to see them.
But they are there, and another one is occuring as we write, in this infinite coupling of the Cosmos itself.
Is there a 'god' out there.....I quote what is often said..."We don't know"...maybe there is a heaven, we don't know.
We'll all be memories to others some time, at some distance along this path, that's what "time" is all about.
Is there an "I" in all of us....."I don't know", but "I" am sure "you" are there, and traveling with me along this path called life.
I could go on and on, till the next bang, but no-one listens, until then, I'll be a memory to someone.
~
P.S. Question: "What contained our big bang before it inflated", same old question...old answers.
~
'mud

 

[RichardParker]

I don't believe asking this question is being non-sensical. Something initiated the big bang and unfortunately, it is currently outside our understanding. But I believe it is definitely is a valid question to ask. It is the same question to ask concerning what came before God when one defines God.

As I've said:
It's about as non-sensical as asking "What lies north of the norh pole".
If you don't think that's a non-senscial question, then fine. I mean, it's a gramatically properly formed question, and it can lead to an explanation of WHY asking this question doesn't make sense, but it is actually very simple:
Asking what came BEFORE something implies a time that precedes a point. So asking what came BEFORE the moment when time started (the big bang) implies that there is a time that precedes the moment when time started... which as I've said doesn't make much sense.

 

[idav]

As I've said:
It's about as non-sensical as asking "What lies north of the norh pole".
If you don't think that's a non-senscial question, then fine. I mean, it's a gramatically properly formed question, and it can lead to an explanation of WHY asking this question doesn't make sense, but it is actually very simple:
Asking what came BEFORE something implies a time that precedes a point. So asking what came BEFORE the moment when time started (the big bang) implies that there is a time that precedes the moment when time started... which as I've said doesn't make much sense.

Not necessarily. Our time state is relative to time zero at highest energy levels when we hit the event horizon and thr state of time zero eqauals x and is an unknown. It isnt that time didnt exist but that it existed differently. After all the singularity existed "before" it expanded at it gained a speeding up into time as it lost energy and cooled.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not necessarily. Our time state is relative to time zero at highest energy levels when we hit the event horizon and thr state of time zero eqauals x and is an unknown. It isnt that time didnt exist but that it existed differently. After all the singularity existed "before" it expanded at it gained a speeding up into time as it lost energy and cooled.

Even if we say that time existed differently, it still means that time did exist. So when we say "time didn't exist", we're not qualifying it properly. "Time didn't exist" suggest that any kind of time didn't exist, so perhaps we should say "time as we understand it and how it exists in our universe didn't exist". Which would then be more specific and allow other kinds of time to exist before our time.

The problem is when WLC uses the Hilbert's hotel paradox to setup his premise that time had to have a beginning, because it sets it up for that any kind of time, ours or some other kind, didn't exist before big bang, so then it becomes a problem to say that something happened or was done before time existed.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

A more accurate way to look at this as a whole is to stop thinking about it in the same terms. Our universe wasn't "created" in the big bang but rather the theory states that we were in a singularity where then dark energy began an expansion. What caused the expansion (if there was a cause) is unknown. The qualities it would require to cause it (again if it were caused) is unknown. And time as we know it depends on change and entropy. Entropy is the forward momentum of time and may be caused by the expansion of the universe. Without movement there is no "time" or at least in the way we measure it. Though there is a new theory out there that states time may not even exist outside of a tool used to measure change. An interesting notion.

 

[RichardParker]

Not necessarily. Our time state is relative to time zero at highest energy levels when we hit the event horizon and thr state of time zero eqauals x and is an unknown. It isnt that time didnt exist but that it existed differently. After all the singularity existed "before" it expanded at it gained a speeding up into time as it lost energy and cooled.

The singularity isn't really a "thing" that existed, but rather a concept to describe the point at which our understanding of the universe breaks down.

 

[outhouse]

The singularity isn't really a "thing" that existed,.

Nope

Black holes exist.

but rather a concept to describe the point at which our understanding of the universe breaks down

yes,


we don't know that a supermassive black hole did not explode

 

[RichardParker]

Nope
Black holes exist.

Ahm...
How is a black hole the same as the singularity?
...
Or do you just mean "singularities", in general?

Ok, yes, black holes (as far as I know) are "gravitational singularities", but they are not "THE singularity", that is refered to when speaking about the origin of the universe.

That's why I didn't write "Singularities don't exist" but "The singularity isn't a "thing" that exists"
:angel2:

 

[Thief]

Seems science leans to a starting 'point'....
Otherwise called the 'singularity'.

 

[idav]

The singularity isn't really a "thing" that existed, but rather a concept to describe the point at which our understanding of the universe breaks down.

We are more than certain a singularity existed at the beginning and we would hit an event horizon which is currently an unknown. As time slows down at higher energies the state of time would simply be in a different state from ours even if time were able to go in reverse into the negative once passed time equals 0.

 

[outhouse]

"gravitational singularities", but they are not "THE singularity",

they are a singularity, there is no definition separating them.


And they very well could the "THE" it is on the table.

 

[Thief]

We are more than certain a singularity existed at the beginning and we would hit an event horizon which is currently an unknown. As time slows down at higher energies the state of time would simply be in a different state from ours even if time were able to hit go in reverse into the negative once passed time equals 0.

Time does not exist.
Move would.....AFTER you allow a secondary 'point'.
and with that formation.....infinity is simultaneous.

 

[idav]

Time does not exist.
Move would.....AFTER you allow a secondary 'point'.
and with that formation.....infinity is simultaneous.

I cant blame that you dont understand the theory and implications Einstein found with general relativity 100 years ago.

 

[outhouse]

I cant blame that you dont understand the theory and implications Einstein found with general relativity 100 years ago.

Anything to promote his personal imagination

 

[RichardParker]

they are a singularity, there is no definition separating them.

Sure, there is!
A singularity (just in general) doesn't always refere necessarily to a black hole.
All black holes are singularites, but not all singularities are black holes.
So, when I was talking about THE singularity which referes to the original state of the universe, and you start talking about an example of any singularity (e.g. a black hole), it's wrongly equivocting one with the other.

And they very well could the "THE" it is on the table.

Could it?
I don't know. I'm no cosmologist, but I've certainly never heard of the idea that the universe originated from a black hole.
But it's irrelevant if it COULD be. That doesn't matter to my point at all.

 

[idav]

Anything to promote his personal imagination

Time really exists and is more just a measurement of change.

 

[suncowiam]

As I've said:
It's about as non-sensical as asking "What lies north of the norh pole".
If you don't think that's a non-senscial question, then fine. I mean, it's a gramatically properly formed question, and it can lead to an explanation of WHY asking this question doesn't make sense, but it is actually very simple:
Asking what came BEFORE something implies a time that precedes a point. So asking what came BEFORE the moment when time started (the big bang) implies that there is a time that precedes the moment when time started... which as I've said doesn't make much sense.

I understand your point if you assume the universe has boundaries hence the north pole analogy. But there is the string theory which proposes a multiverse that expands the boundaries which actually describes before and after the big bang. This theory also also unifies the very big and the very small. But there are various string theories that are not converging and the biggest issue is that we cannot physically observe other universes so inherently we will not be able to systematically test these theories.

Again, I do understand your point. Both of us could be right but I'm choosing the proposition that has less restrictions to promote further thought.

Edited: Since I'm using the words before and after then yes, you're correct in reference to time. But if there are other dimensions which you can traverse along then I'm referring to a point in that dimension before the big bang.

 

[RichardParker]

I understand your point if you assume the universe has boundaries hence the north pole analogy. But there is the string theory which proposes a multiverse that expands the boundaries which actually describes before and after the big bang. This theory also also unifies the very big and the very small. But there are various string theories that are not converging and the biggest issue is that we cannot physically observe other universes so inherently we will not be able to systematically test these theories.

Again, I do understand your point. Both of us could be right but I'm choosing the proposition that has less restrictions to promote further thought.

Edited: Since I'm using the words before and after then yes, you're correct in reference to time. But if there are other dimensions which you can traverse along then I'm referring to a point in that dimension before the big bang.

Makes sense (at least as far as I can understand it).
I also might want to clarify, that I don't NECESSARILY think that you can't have a "before" the big bang.
I just think if you are going to talk about a "before" state, you need to justify why and how you use it. It's not as simple as it is when you talk about events that happen INSIDE the universe.

Now, I understand that there are models that describe ideas like the multiverse. I just think we have to keep in mind that these are all hypothesis at the current moment, not yet theories. I think until we have any way to test any of it, we simply don't know enough about the origin of the universe to make ANY clear claim about it.