What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

It's not something you believe or not-believe in: it's happening right now, and you are totally a part of it.

Do you think it was a superior being who created the Big Bang?

In the Beginning, there was Nothing, which exploded.

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

They're all part of the same Reality.

Was it something else?

There is no 'something else'. You're IT, pretending to be 'something else'.

 

[swamplizard]

How do we know existing isn't the default?

Perhaps, we do.

best,
swampy

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Greetings SandyW,

One does not need to define what was in order to know that existence must precede an event.

best,
swampy

This is hypothesizing at best.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What came before the big bang?.

What matters is what we really know about the singularity and the possibilities.

Again then, there is no basis in physics to know what came before the big bang.

 

[swamplizard]

This is hypothesizing at best.

Greetings Sandy w,

I agree, your response resembles your conclusion.

best regards,
swampy

 

[outhouse]

Again then, there is no basis in physics to know what came before the big bang.

Sure there is.

Because we cannot fully describe a singularity, does not mean we are fully ignorant of it.

 

[gnostic]

In the Beginning, there was Nothing, which exploded.

Are you joking?

If you're not, then...

There is no "nothing".

There was something, just that we don't know what that something was before the Big Bang. It just that before the Big Bang, matters as we know them (atoms, including electrons, protons, neutrons), molecules, etc) haven't formed yet.

The current hypothesis is that the entire universe was nothing more than a singularity, in which it was very hot, and very dense, that matters/atoms can't form; the law of physics can't apply in pre-Bang.

And there is no explosion. The Big Bang just inaccurate name for the universe initial expansion. Space expanded. As the universe expand, so does space. And the more it expanded, the universe became cool enough for subatomic particles to form, atomic particles, like protons and neutrons, and bond to form atomic nuclei. Electrons formed later still, before they bonded with atomic nuclei, to form the first elements - hydrogen.

With enough hydrogen formed and coalescing together by gravitational force, eventually the first stars were formed. Other matters or elements were formed by these stars, especially when they died, either as red giants spewing stellar-materials out in space, or as supernova.

Our planet and the Sun was possibly formed out of the materials from these supernova.

This description is the simple or abbreviated version to the Big Bang. It is a lot more complicated (and longer) than this post.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The Big Bang Theory seems more real than ever since it doesn't solve the original question of whether the Chicken or the Egg came first. It is in sync with the contradiction that is existence.

 

[That one dude...]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

Do you think it was a superior being who created the Big Bang?

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

Was it something else?

There is much evidence in favor of it, so yes.

I don't know, but I doubt it.

I think that's silly. The universe contains everything. Multiple everythings doesn't make sense to me. Sounds like wishful thinking.

I don't have my own theory about it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

As a Christian theist I have no problem believing in the big bang while maintaining my theism.

Do you think it was a superior being who created the Big Bang?

Absolutely.

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

No.

Was it something else?

Yes. See Gen 1:1.

 

[godnotgod]

Are you joking?

If you're not, then...

There is no "nothing".

Is that so? If there is no 'nothing', then how is it that you can talk about 'something'?

There was something, just that we don't know what that something was before the Big Bang. It just that before the Big Bang, matters as we know them (atoms, including electrons, protons, neutrons), molecules, etc) haven't formed yet.

The current hypothesis is that the entire universe was nothing more than a singularity, in which it was very hot, and very dense, that matters/atoms can't form; the law of physics can't apply in pre-Bang.

Yes, that's called the inflationary theory, but some new evidence being advanced by Dr. Roger Penrose suggests a cyclical universe. See here:

Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang - physicsworld.com

The notion of a recurring universe coincides exactly with the Hindu cosmological model, where the worlds manifest themselves over and over again, in-between periods of non-manifestation. Each manifestation consists of four long periods, called kalpas.

And there is no explosion. The Big Bang just inaccurate name for the universe initial expansion. Space expanded.

How can that be, since both the universe and Space-Time would have originated with the BB? IOW, both would already have had to have been in place for either to undergo such expansion.

As the universe expand, so does space. And the more it expanded, the universe became cool enough for subatomic particles to form, atomic particles, like protons and neutrons, and bond to form atomic nuclei. Electrons formed later still, before they bonded with atomic nuclei, to form the first elements - hydrogen.

With enough hydrogen formed and coalescing together by gravitational force, eventually the first stars were formed. Other matters or elements were formed by these stars, especially when they died, either as red giants spewing stellar-materials out in space, or as supernova.

Our planet and the Sun was possibly formed out of the materials from these supernova.

This description is the simple or abbreviated version to the Big Bang. It is a lot more complicated (and longer) than this post.

I understand what you're getting at, but all of this merely assumes one thing: that what we call 'matter' is real, and being real, the perennial problem has always been, both for theists and scientists, the origin of matter. But if matter is an illusion, or maya, as the Hindus have told us for centuries, then there is no problem of origin. An illusion can come out of No-thing-ness. In fact, that is exactly the nature of illusion: that there is nothing inherent that one can call real. Well, modern Quantum Physics is now overturning the previous paradigm of what we called 'reality', and cutting edge theoretical physics is telling us about a 'universe out of nothing':

[youtube]0ZiXC8Yh4T0[/youtube]
Krauss '09: "A Universe From Nothing" - YouTube

When you clap your hands, where do you think the sound comes from?

 

[godnotgod]

The Big Bang Theory seems more real than ever since it doesn't solve the original question of whether the Chicken or the Egg came first. It is in sync with the contradiction that is existence.

Maybe it's just an illusion, which doesn't require time, space, or causation.

What do you mean that existence is a contradiction?

 

[Brickjectivity]

What do you mean that existence is a contradiction?

I mean "the original question of whether the Chicken or the Egg came first.v"

 

[godnotgod]

I mean "the original question of whether the Chicken or the Egg came first.v"

That question goes back to when one-celled organisms were able to reproduce, doesn't it?

But in terms of the BB Theory, there is only a 'first' if we are thinking in terms of linear time. If the BB is only one of many endless such events, there is no beginning nor end, no first or last. Like the chicken/egg 'dilemma', one implies the other.

 

[The Wizard]

No

Space is time. They are connected as one.

Yes, but everything and time is connected as one. Space is a part of the big bang creation in which we measure. The universe is just a huge operation. It created space as you stated. Time is the word we use to measure what goes on in it and at what point. Other than conscious beings and perhaps smart animals, existence just functions and the concept of time makes no difference. We are the only ones who use a clock to operate and measure...which is unnatural, actually.

But ive never seen a firecracker or any other explosion, fall back in on itself.

OK, now... Apples to oranges... and amount of gravity, of course..

The fact this universe is expanding at a faster rate, kind of throws cold water on your hypothesis

Sorry, but it's going to take a lot more than that in order to throw away the best module of existence and the Universe for me to understand things. Unfortunately, something is off by a hair that scientists can't figure out at the moment and suddenly it becomes a crazy fantasia of taking multi-universe bubble baths and paradigm shattering stretches- all because there is something they can't figure out yet... and I'll just wait. The story changes every 5 years...

What makes you think that it's not just some odd ball fluctuation or behavior they haven't discovered yet? How does such things suddenly "throw cold water" and vanish the possibility of a big bang- crunch cycle? Are we going to change our entire perspective of the Universe every time a scientist discovers a spooky anomaly?

I'm just going to hold my cards and wait...

 

[Brickjectivity]

That question goes back to when one-celled organisms were able to reproduce, doesn't it?

But in terms of the BB Theory, there is only a 'first' if we are thinking in terms of linear time. If the BB is only one of many endless such events, there is no beginning nor end, no first or last. Like the chicken/egg 'dilemma', one implies the other.

I think that the real confusion stems from the belief in 'Nothing'. We believe in Outer Space, a huge empty void. Out of this we say Something appears. It doesn't make any sense. The definition of 'Nothing' precludes anything coming out of it.

 

[godnotgod]

I think that the real confusion stems from the belief in 'Nothing'. We believe in Outer Space, a huge empty void. Out of this we say Something appears. It doesn't make any sense. The definition of 'Nothing' precludes anything coming out of it.

And yet, the very moment you attempt to define or conceive of the idea of 'some-thing', you have, in that very moment, done so against a background, or field, without which that very something cannot be understood to be something. You don't notice the presence of the background since it is already present prior to the notion of something, just as a fish is not aware of the presence of the sea into which it is born. 'Nothingness' is odorless, tasteless, invisible, silent, and without form, and yet, is absolutely necessary to the existence of 'something', just as the empty hub of a wagon wheel is essential to the spokes of the wheel. Since all things can only be understood as such when seen against a background of no-thing-ness, then it is perfectly logical to say that nothing is essential to everything, or, in other words, that everything comes out of nothing, nothingness being the default state. Things are temporal, exhibit form, relative, changing and finite; Nothingness is eternal, absolute, formless, changeless, and infinite.

The definition of No-thing precludes anything coming out of it, UNLESS the something coming out of it is illusory, on a higher plane than how we ordinarily perceive illusion. Einstein himself states that there is no matter as such; that what we call 'matter' is just energy, vibrating at a very low frequency. Planck says something similar.

You cannot have a figure without ground, as in the following image:

 

[godnotgod]

I think that the real confusion stems from the belief in 'Nothing'. We believe in Outer Space, a huge empty void. Out of this we say Something appears. It doesn't make any sense. The definition of 'Nothing' precludes anything coming out of it.

It doesn't make any 'sense' to the rational, conceptualizing mind, because it does not fit what the conceptual mind comes up with to try and make Reality fit its ideas. That is what we call 'paradox'. But to a different kind of conscious awareness, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think that the real confusion stems from the belief in 'Nothing'. We believe in Outer Space, a huge empty void. Out of this we say Something appears. It doesn't make any sense. The definition of 'Nothing' precludes anything coming out of it.

Actually space isn't empty. It has particles within it. And technically space is part of our universe. Space would not exist without the universe. The concept of "nothing" would not exist without the universe.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It doesn't make any 'sense' to the rational, conceptualizing mind, because it does not fit what the conceptual mind comes up with to try and make Reality fit its ideas. That is what we call 'paradox'. But to a different kind of conscious awareness, it makes perfect sense.

Perhaps you can bend your awareness for a little while, but it is analogous to taking a deep ocean dive. You must return to the surface, to the dry land that is conceptual reasoning. Whatever you bring back soon dies in this dry air, and there's just no way that it proves that anything comes out of nothing.

Actually space isn't empty. It has particles within it. And technically space is part of our universe. Space would not exist without the universe. The concept of "nothing" would not exist without the universe.

Recent theories do say that 'Space' isn't truly empty. These are called 'Speculative Physics' sometimes. The Wikipedia article suggests the three main concerns with the Big Bang theory are Horizon, Flatness and Magnetic Monopoles. Its not known what kind of universe we are in, and technically that is the same as saying we don't know what happened before the Big Bang or even what happened afterwards.