Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep3_banner.thumb.jpg.5533fb830ae914798f4dbbdd2c8a5853.jpg

Scotti G

What came before the Big Bang

Recommended Posts

What came before the big bang?

 

I’m sure most people have pondered this question, even if for just a second.

I can’t say for sure, but I have a theory.

So instead of starting with what happened before the big bang, let’s go from here onward.

What is at the centre of our galaxy? A black hole.

What is a black hole? It’s basically an extremely dense object that attracts everything around it and then consumes it.

The glue that holds any solar system is the centre of that solar system, a sun.

But unlike a solar system which keeps its subjects in constant concentric stability, the objects around a galaxy do not rotate in concentric circles. They spiral inwards, hence the spiral nature of any galaxy. Like water in a sink, the closer the water spirals towards the epicenter the faster it moves – and then gone.

So, our black hole will eventually consume everything around it, at the same time growing in gravitational power, resulting in a big black hole.

The same will happen with all the other galaxies in the universe. So, we will end up with a bunch of black holes.

The bigger ones will start attracting the smaller ones, it might even result in galaxies of black holes.

These smaller black holes spiraling towards a central ginormous black hole will be eaten giving birth to gigantic ginormous black holes.

These gigantic ginormous black holes will then start attracting each other, bringing all of the matter in the universe closer and closer together.

Smaller black holes merging with bigger black holes and so on.

Eventually there will only be two mother black holes. Gravity being the force that brings these two together and then they will eventually merge.

At this point in time all the matter in the universe, at the same time in space will contract due to gravity and reach a critical point. The laws of physics will reach an anomaly. And then, BANG. Or should I say, the next big Bang?

So, to refer to the title: What came before the big bang? The answer is simply, the previous Big Bang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I thought it was "Young Sheldon"🤔

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Scotti G you have some major misunderstanding of galaxies , gravity and black holes.

The spiral form of galaxies is not due to material falling into the centre. A black hole has the same gravitational effect as a similar mass object that is not a black hole.

Given the expansion of the Universe it is not likely that all mass will  coalesce. Indeed current theory suggests it certainly will not.

Objects can have stable orbits around a black hole. Although no orbits are ultimately stable including the solar system.

Regards Andrew 

Edited by andrew s
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here’s a question then....The fact is there was never a “big bang” in the first place....there was nothing, no time, no “space” no matter, nothing. The Universe came into being in an infinitely small space (or everywhere at the same time, either way it must have been infinitely small)and matter, as we know it was created in the first millionths of a second and the Universe has been expanding ever since. My question would be....what is the Universe, as we know it, expanding into??...Does it create “space “ at the edges as it expands because there is nothing beyond the Universe, not even an empty space!

Edited by Jiggy 67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Jiggy 67 said:

Here’s a question then....The fact is there was never a “big bang” in the first place....there was nothing, no time, no “space” no matter, nothing. The Universe came into being in an infinitely small space (or everywhere at the same time, either way it must have been infinitely small)and matter, as we know it was created in the first millionths of a second and the Universe has been expanding ever since. My question would be....what is the Universe, as we know it, expanding into??...Does it create “space “ at the edges as it expands because there is nothing beyond the Universe, not even an empty space!

The simple answer is we don't know what happed before the first few microseconds.

Our best theory has the Universe in a very hot dense initial state. It was and remains spatially infinite (or very close to infinite) .  It  has been expanding and cooling ever since. 

As the Universe undergoes metric expansion it is not expanding into anything as it is everything.  There is no outside perspective.  

Regards Andrew 

Edited by andrew s
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What came before the Big Bang? According to one comedian... the "slow expansion"?
I do apologise for "not resisting"! A lot of today's comedy makes even me blush, but! 🤣

I think there are genuine / serious articles on this very subject though... 😎

Edited by Macavity
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big bang started space-time, so there wasn't a before.

Also read up on the heat death of the universe.

I have just finished 'welcome to the universe' by neil degrasse tyson. Really great read that looks at alot of topics like the OP stated.

I think unfortunately for us normal people, we just dont have the level of intelligence to really seriously consider the question. Try reading the black hole chapter in Steven hawking's brief history of time! 

Your sub atomic physics needs to be world class to even understand the question properly.

And mine certainly is not! 😂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/05/2020 at 01:30, Jiggy 67 said:

Here’s a question then....The fact is there was never a “big bang” in the first place....there was nothing, no time, no “space” no matter, nothing. The Universe came into being in an infinitely small space (or everywhere at the same time, either way it must have been infinitely small)and matter, as we know it was created in the first millionths of a second and the Universe has been expanding ever since. My question would be....what is the Universe, as we know it, expanding into??...Does it create “space “ at the edges as it expands because there is nothing beyond the Universe, not even an empty space!

Words matter. Within the Big Bang theory the phrase 'before the big bang' is meaningless because the theory has it that the dimensions of space and time as we observe them began at the big bang. 'Before' is a term which is only meaningful as a term within that time dimension so it cannot be used outside that dimension. 'Before the BB' is as meaningless as 'On the Matterhorn in London.' The Matterhorn is not in London so the phrase is meaningless.

However, nothing in the BB theory stipulates that are no other dimensions in existence. Dimensions outside our observed space and time dimensions can exist and from those dimensions our BB universe could have been born. I think it safer to talk about outside the big bang universe rather than before the big bang because the term before should not be applied to dimensions other than the BB's time dimension. It's already bad enough without having two different concepts of 'before' sharing the same word!

The same can be said for space. The space dimension(s) of the BB universe exist only in the BB universe but those dimensions may not be the only ones.

It's also worth remembering that the idea of past, present and future cannot be regarded as fact. They are themselves part of a theory of time and may be illusions.

Olly

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@ollypenrice a challenging post to review on a hot Friday afternoon. Where it not a diet day it would be done while downing one or two glasses of chilled wine. Yes I put ice in mine a habit from too many hot airport lounges. To business.

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Words matter

 

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

It's also worth remembering that the idea of past, present and future cannot be regarded as fact. They are themselves part of a theory of time and may be illusions.

Interestingly in science there is no present, before/past or after/future! Our everyday concept of time is not compatible with the relativity of simultaneity.  Each event has it's own past and future light cones but it shares no present with another event nor a complete past or future light cone! Rather, than our common sense idea of time (some times referred to as manifest time) we have many times associated with different systems of coordinates. Perhaps the most useful in cosmology are those attached to the Hubble flow (i.e. at "rest" with respect to the microwave background). for the super nerd try "What Makes time Special" by Craig Callender a 300 page book.

 

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

the theory has it that the dimensions of space and time as we observe them began at the big bang.

This is not quite correct as I understand it. Our best current model (LCDM) if projected backwards has two factors going to zero. Firstly the time coordinate 't',  as discussed above, and secondly the spatial scale factor 'a'. However, it is still spatially infinite up to that point!!!!  Formally the point t =0 a=0 is outside space time but remember space time is just geometry.

We don't have any observational evidence past the release of the cosmic microwave background but know science (particle physics etc.) takes us back to ~10^-10s. Before that all we can say is nothing. See "An introduction to Modern Cosmology" by Andrew Liddle - minor nerd level.

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

However, nothing in the BB theory stipulates that are no other dimensions in existence. Dimensions outside our observed space and time dimensions can exist and from those dimensions our BB universe could have been born. I think it safer to talk about outside the big bang universe rather than before the big bang because the term before should not be applied to dimensions other than the BB's time dimension. It's already bad enough without having two different concepts of 'before' sharing the same word!

 

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

he same can be said for space. The space dimension(s) of the BB universe exist only in the BB universe but those dimensions may not be the only ones.

Indeed we can speculate at will, however, there is not one iota of evidence for additional dimensions. Our two most fundamental theories General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory are both formulated with one time and three space dimensions. as is Special Relativity,classical physics and all physical theories that have observation support.

Many scientists make a living, at our expense, proposing more, in for example string theory or equally grandly multi-verses ,

I will take note of these speculations when they explain some as yet unexplained observation. 

Regards Andrew

PS Give me food...…….

Edited by andrew s
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andrew s said:

@ollypenrice a challenging post to review on a hot Friday afternoon. Where it not a diet day it would be done while downing one or two glasses of chilled wine. Yes I put ice in mine a habit from too many hot airport lounges. To business.

 

Interestingly in science there is no present, before/past or after/future! Our everyday concept of time is not compatible with the relativity of simultaneity.  Each event has it's own past and future light cones but it shares no present with another event nor a complete past or future light cone! Rather, than our common sense idea of time (some times referred to as manifest time) we have many times associated with different systems of coordinates. Perhaps the most useful in cosmology are those attached to the Hubble flow (i.e. at "rest" with respect to the microwave background). for the super nerd try "What Makes time Special" by Craig Callender a 300 page book.

 

This is not quite correct as I understand it. Our best current model (LCDM) if projected backwards has two factors going to zero. Firstly the time coordinate 't',  as discussed above, and secondly the spatial scale factor 'a'. However, it is still spatially infinite up to that point!!!!  Formally the point t =0 a=0 is outside space time but remember space time is just geometry.

We don't have any observational evidence past the release of the cosmic microwave background but know science (particle physics etc.) takes us back to ~10^-10s. Before that all we can say is nothing. See "An introduction to Modern Cosmology" by Andrew Liddle - minor nerd level.

 

Indeed we can speculate at will, however, there is not one iota of evidence for additional dimensions. Our two most fundamental theories General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory are both formulated with one time and three space dimensions. as is Special Relativity,classical physics and all physical theories that have observation support.

Many scientists make a living, at our expense, proposing more, in for example string theory or equally grandly multi-verses ,

I will take note of these speculations when they explain some as yet unexplained observation. 

Regards Andrew

PS Give me food...…….

Of course, you're a long way ahead of me but I do know 'An Introduction to Modern Cosmology' as a one-time course textbook.  But I think, as many do, that the notion of creation 'ex nihilo' runs against the grain. That's not to say it's wrong and, as I never tire of thinking, nature has no obligation to seem reasonable to us. We are a product of our immediate circumstances, not of all the circumstances which may be. But I do think the question, 'What happened before the BB' is worthy of consideration and additional dimensions can resolve it - very vaguely. Why would we assume that we can perceive all that there is? 

I'm instinctively highly suspicious of string theory, though I have not the slightest competence in its mathematics. My doubts arise from my readings in the history of science, encouraged by Lee Smolin's 'The Trouble WiIh Physics.' One of our regular guests is a string theorist by profession and said that he had considerable respect for Smolin's objections. But the detail is far beyond me.

Olly

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

 But I do think the question, 'What happened before the BB' is worthy of consideration and additional dimensions can resolve it - very vaguely. Why would we assume that we can perceive all that there is?.

Olly

I fully agree. We have got very close at 10 ^-10s. The best theories before that are the inflationary ones which have an energy dense "inflation" field which drives an inflationary period.

They were invented to solve some issues with the uniformity of the CMB so by design they have some connections with observation. In these model the LCDM singularity is avoided but don't really explain much that I think would satisfy you. 

One interesting game in physics is rather than propose new dimensions (which some do) you propose more fields e.g. Higgs, Inflation etc.

I am sure the Universe (i.e. everything)  is nothing like our perceptions of it nonetheless we have made a good first at understanding it in our frame of reference. However, in my view any science worthy of the name has to relate theory to observation even if that limits what it can address.

Regards  Andrew 

PS I agree with a lot in "The Trouble With Physics"

Edited by andrew s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to remember that the big bang theory is just that and not a fact, I worry that some less fashionable ones get dismissed too quickly.

Alan

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

I think we need to remember that the big bang theory is just that and not a fact, I worry that some less fashionable ones get dismissed too quickly.

Alan

No scientific theory is a fact and no facts/observations are theory independent. Theory is judged on how well it works.

Any particular theory you feel is being neglected?

Regards Andrew 

Edited by andrew s
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, andrew s said:

No scientific theory is a fact and no facts/observations are theory independent. Theory is judged on how well it works.

Any particular theory you feel is being neglected?

Regards Andrew 

Nothing specific Andrew, just a worry that we stop exploring new ideas.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alien 13 said:

Nothing specific Andrew, just a worry that we stop exploring new ideas.

Alan

I don't think you need worry if you follow the avxiv.org listings say on astrophysics you will see papers on many "fringe" theories, MOND for example.

Regards Andrew

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What came before the Big Bang?

The Long Tick Tick Tick...

Edited by Ags
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, andrew s said:

I fully agree. We have got very close at 10 ^-10s. The best theories before that are the inflationary ones which have an energy dense "inflation" field which drives an inflationary period.

They were invented to solve some issues with the uniformity of the CMB so by design they have some connections with observation. In these model the LCDM singularity is avoided but don't really explain much that I think would satisfy you. 

One interesting game in physics is rather than propose new dimensions (which some do) you propose more fields e.g. Higgs, Inflation etc.

I am sure the Universe (i.e. everything)  is nothing like our perceptions of it nonetheless we have made a good first at understanding it in our frame of reference. However, in my view any science worthy of the name has to relate theory to observation even if that limits what it can address.

Regards  Andrew 

PS I agree with a lot in "The Trouble With Physics"

I think I need to read about fields in general...  It's a very strange notion for me, though clearly a powerful one.

I see Carlo Rovelli has written a book about time. That's on my list as well.

Olly

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

I think I need to read about fields in general...  It's a very strange notion for me, though clearly a powerful one.

I see Carlo Rovelli has written a book about time. That's on my list as well.

Olly

I am sure your happy (ish) with the classical electromagnetic field and they are more or less generalisations of that. Everywhere, they have a value which could be a scalar like temperature or a vector like wind speed. Unfortunately,  I don't know a good introduction to recommend to you.

I am sure you will enjoy Carlo's book although he can be left field. Not always a bad thing.

Regards Andrew 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BB is just a theory, nothing more. Debating what came before something not proven is speculation at best.

As a species we do not have the intelligence or knowledge to determine where the universe came from. Until we are in that position, speculation may be entertaining, but has no practical purpose. I'd prefer to wait for something more substantial; though I do appreciate some people's need for an origin story however illogical or fanciful that may be.

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

BB is just a theory, nothing more. Debating what came before something not proven is speculation at best.

As a species we do not have the intelligence or knowledge to determine where the universe came from. Until we are in that position, speculation may be entertaining, but has no practical purpose. I'd prefer to wait for something more substantial; though I do appreciate some people's need for an origin story however illogical or fanciful that may be.

What, if anything, in your view is proven? 

The proposition that, as a species, we don't have intelligence to understand where the Universe came from is just an unproven speculation on your part. 🤔

Regards Andrew 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, andrew s said:

What, if anything, in your view is proven? 

The proposition that, as a species, we don't have intelligence to understand where the Universe came from is just an unproven speculation on your part. 🤔

Regards Andrew 

Do you have evidence to support the contrary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science isn’t in the business of “proving” anything, and to label a mass of empirical evidence as speculation is at best an ignorant statement. Individually we do lack the intellect to assess the issue, but collectively we can grasp such things, and this is the way science works. By examinations from several avenues of study we gain a conciliatory view of observational reality, and the resultant conglomerate of facts provide us the most accurate framework developed to date.

It is very easy to dismiss this body of work out of hand, but far harder to refute. Until such time as the existing evidence that there indeed was an inflationary period in the history of our universe is overturned it is only logical to accept what the evidence tells us. The cosmic background radiation isn’t a dreamed up “just so” story. The earliest galaxies spectroscopy data doesn’t return consistent results because the researchers “needed” it to.

As for the “just a theory” position it’s clear that such arises from a laypersons understanding of matters of science. Is the germ theory of disease “just a theory”? How about the theory of relativity that resulted in the discovery of light being distorted by gravitational masses? A theory is the explanatory framework used to describe observations and positive test results. A theory has also survived each an every test put to it, and a means of falsifying the base premise of the theory if condition X arises is provided. A hypothesis, alternatively, is a suggestion for a new position whereby testing and a means of falsifying said position is put forward.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

Do you have evidence to support the contrary?

I don't need to you made the claim not I. Recall, absense of proof is not proof of absense.

I would however, point out the vast range of observations we have explained from the very small to the very large and as I posted before no theory can be proven.  It is just good or bad at explaining what we observe.

I was being tongue in cheek but I balk at the phrase "just a theory" it implies there could be  more which is why I asked what you thought was proven. Personally I don't  think anything is in the sciences.

If you seek certainty you need another route to knowledge one, for example, that is forbidden to be discussed on this forum.

Regards Andrew 

Edited by andrew s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

BB is just a theory, nothing more. Debating what came before something not proven is speculation at best.

As a species we do not have the intelligence or knowledge to determine where the universe came from. Until we are in that position, speculation may be entertaining, but has no practical purpose. I'd prefer to wait for something more substantial; though I do appreciate some people's need for an origin story however illogical or fanciful that may be.

 

Since the BB runs time backwards to within a vanishingly small time before something which looks like 'a beginning' it seems to me to be natural to speculate that, after all, the 'universe' we're looking at here may not be all that there is. I think it would be obtuse not to speculate along these lines but it would also be obtuse not to realize that we are only speculating. However, if we could come up with an hypothesis of 'other universes' which predicted observable indicators present in the one we can observe then we could look for them and we'd be doing science again.  The speculative hypothesis has been the start of many scientific theories. What would be profoundly unscientific would be to say, 'We will never have have any way of constructing a substantial theory of other universes.' I'm not accusing you of saying this, by the way, I'm just following the idea.

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, andrew s said:

I don't need to you made the claim not I. Recall, absense of proof is not proof of absense.

I would however, point out the vast range of observations we have explained from the very small to the very large and as I posted before no theory can be proven.  It is just good or bad at explaining what we observe.

I was being tongue in cheek but I balk at the phrase "just a theory" it implies there could be  more which is why I asked what you thought was proven. Personally I don't  think anything is in the sciences.

If you seek certainty you need another route to knowledge one, for example, that is forbidden to be discussed on this forum.

Regards Andrew 

When people say something is 'just a theory,' I think that, nine times out of ten, they mean, 'That is just an hypothesis,' and fail to understand the difference. The same people, ironically, are full of assumptions which they hold as certainties when, in fact, they are 'just theories.' 😁  They will hold it absurd, for example, for time to begin.

In the same irony it is they, and not the scientists, who believe in absolute reality.

52 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

Do you have evidence to support the contrary?

Are you not in danger of putting words into Andrew's mouth, here?  He never said or implied that humans certainly have the intelligence to understand where the universe came from.  I rather doubt that he would say such a thing.

Olly

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.