Before the big bang

MooseJam

There was nothing, is it possible for the human mind to picture nothing, no time no space, usually when we picture nothing we imagine an absence of things but an empty void where things could be, can you imagine a total nothing where even nothing itself doesn't exist.

It's hard to put it into words does anybody know what i'm getting at ?

Turtwig

Let's try visualising a particle first. It's not a solid object, it's wavey ...see there are some things that we just cannot imagine or possibly fathom. (Can you visualise anything that isn't a solid object?)
Universe is "queer" and the truth is stranger than any fiction.

Sykk

I don't believe in the big bang theory. George Lemaitre first proposed the idea afaik.

It's a good theory but personally I don't think this is the way the universe came to be.

-Nigel

Plug

Sykk wrote: »

I don't believe in the big bang theory. George Lemaitre first proposed the idea afaik.

It's a good theory but personally I don't think this is the way the universe came to be.

-Nigel

Same here, how can something as big as the universe come from nothing.

Amtmann

This show hints at an answer. The answer is very unsettling, btw...

Sykk

Well, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose proved that time has a beginning. A point where Gravity has an infinite density.

But a massive explosion that spanned 13 Bn + lightyears out of nowhere is a bit far fetched methinks. Not that I have another explaination or anything! God perhaps? A lot people don't believe in him but that paper proving the beginning of time was accepted with open arms in the Catholic church.

-Nigel

Turtwig

Sykk wrote: »

But a massive explosion that spanned 13 Bn + lightyears out of nowhere is a bit far fetched methinks.

Not an explosion. See these videos for a better description.:)

Kevster

The Big Bang theory is useful because it describes very well what we see today (in the Universe) but also how all that we see got there in the first place - i.e. it describes the past and future evolution of the Universe accurately.

However, I also don't think that the Big Bang actually happened. In my opinion, I envisage that the Universe has 'always' existed and that it goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. One must assume that we are in an expansion phase.

Kevin

Sykk

Malty_T wrote: »

Not an explosion. See these videos for a better description.:)

In work, can't watch them :rolleyes: Will do when I'm home later tho.

-Nigel

Turtwig

Sykk wrote: »

In work, can't watch them :rolleyes: Will do when I'm home later tho.

-Nigel

Ahh fup sorry, meant to link.:o

Kevster

He mentions googol and googolplex in that video. Am I right in thinking that these numbers only differ by one digit (an extra zero)?

Googol = 10, 000, 000, ..., ..., 000 (100 zeros)
Googolplex = 100, 000, 000, ..., ..., 000 (101 zeros?)

Edit: Actually, they're far greater than what I had thought. I just did some calculations.

MooseJam

I'll check out those video's but will just throw this out there, where did the big bang occur ? don't you need a place for an occurance to occur

MayoForSam

MooseJam wrote: »

I'll check out those video's but will just throw this out there, where did the big bang occur ? don't you need a place for an occurance to occur

The centre of the universe, although as far as I know gravity may not be a constant so the universe may not be a simply expanding sphere. Speaking of which, if the universe is expanding outwards, what is it expanding into? Gaining a true understanding of quantum astrophysics is way beyond the capabilities of our flesh and blood brains I'm afraid.

Sykk

MooseJam wrote: »

I'll check out those video's but will just throw this out there, where did the big bang occur ? don't you need a place for an occurance to occur

13.4BN Lightyears or so years from earth. That's where the gravity is infinite. Walls of plasma prevent further view.

MooseJam

Sykk wrote: »

13.4BN Lightyears or so years from earth. That's where the gravity is infinite. Walls of plasma prevent further view.

I don't think you understood the question, 13.4bn lightyears from earth is a place in our universe, the universe did not exist before the big bang is what I mean so where did the big bang occur, given nothing exists there is no 'place' for it to happen.

Turtwig

MooseJam wrote: »

I don't think you understood the question, 13.4bn lightyears from earth is a place in our universe, the universe did not exist before the big bang is what I mean so where did the big bang occur, given nothing exists there is no 'place' for it to happen.

How do you know the universe didn't exist? We can only look back as far as time began, but there was still the spatial part of the universe "before" that.

Sykk

MooseJam wrote: »

I don't think you understood the question, 13.4bn lightyears from earth is a place in our universe, the universe did not exist before the big bang is what I mean so where did the big bang occur, given nothing exists there is no 'place' for it to happen.

You're saying that a universe made up of possibly quadrillions stars, billions upon billions of inter stellar galaxies and the like came from nothing? I think you're thinking too far beyond the logic here.

Something was there before the birth of the universe. We just don't fully or even partially understand what it was.

Edit: Top physicists believe time didn't exist before "The big bang" - Maybe that's why you're thinking nothing existed.

-Nigel

djhaxman

Sykk wrote: »

13.4BN Lightyears or so years from earth. That's where the gravity is infinite. Walls of plasma prevent further view.

The walls of plasma you mention is the cosmic microwave background radiation which is the leftover radiation from the big bang. This radiation was high energy, short-wavelength photons that have had their wavelengths stretched by the expansion of the universe. This is direct evidence for a big bang event. The Planck space telescope is currently analysing this :

http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK&page=INDEX

The reason that astronomers can't see any further back than where they can see now is that there was no light till after the first stars and galaxies started to form about 13 billion light years ago and this is so far redshifted again by the expansion of the universe, hence we see it in infra-red rather than visual light.

MooseJam

Malty_T wrote: »

How do you know the universe didn't exist? We can only look back as far as time began, but there was still the spatial part of the universe "before" that.

The general consensus is that there was nothing before the big bang - no time and no space, there was no spatial part of the universe before that, there was no before.

The whole universe expanded out of nothing , it didn't expand or blow out into a preexisting spacial void , the spatial part of the universe itself expanded out of nothing.

Sykk

MooseJam wrote: »

The general consensus is that there was nothing before the big bang - no time and no space, there was no spatial part of the universe before that, there was no before.

The whole universe expanded out of nothing , it didn't expand or blow out into a preexisting spacial void , the spatial part of the universe itself expanded out of nothing.

Then my question is - How did something with infinite gravity at a billion billion billion billion billion billion (72 zeros) tons of gravitational pressure per square inch expand ?

It's like Earth's gravity turned opposite for no reason and everything falls off - only this is on a much more impossible state.

Edit: The explanations from above came from Stephen Hawkings book so some calculations may have been misinterpeted in the relay . PS I read a good bit today, pretty hardcore to take in!

-Nigel

djhaxman

Hawking himself can't explain it properly, so there's no hope for us mere mortals!

The laws of physics break down until a point at roughly 10^-37 seconds after the big bang after which scientists can speculate on what happened. Nobody has a definite answer, and we may never have. The big bang theory is just the scenario that best explains what happened given the information available to us at the minute.

It's head melting stuff.

rccaulfield

Is the main evidence for the big bang the doppler effect or is there more? I'm torn on the big bang. Everything that happened from say 12 billion years ago thats no problem thats obvious we know about stellar evolution and evolution of life on earth and the start of life here is beginning to become clear aswell!
But i've always struggled with the big bang.

Kevster

It's a combination of a lot of things, rccaulfield, including the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the way that galaxies and stars have formed and evolved, and - yes - the Doppler effect comes into it too as we measure how far other celestial bodies are away from us (but more importantly the fact that most seem to be accelerating away from us).

Kevin

Gurgle

MooseJam wrote: »

There was nothing...

AFAIK, no serious scientist actually believes this.
Before the big bang, all the constituent mass/energy in our universe was in the form of condensed matter at the centre.

Before that (extrapolating) it seems to have been drawn together gravitationally.

Before that (speculating) it was either a previous iteration of our 'universe' (big crunch), or it was bits and pieces from lots of other far away big-bang expansions (multiverse) which gathered over a couple of trillion years.

ynotdu

still the question remains,and something i cannot get My head around is where the 'random matter'that came together came from
It is an Extremely complex theory.

AFAIK NASA claims that Hubble has received light from 600 million years after the big bang.

I can understand that random matter could gather to the point that it creates Gravity and as that Gravity draws in matter its force becomes hugh and unstoppable.

To try and visualise 'the big bang' i think of dying and dead stars,the Supernova stage of the life and death of same{that at least there is evidence of:)} helps Me understand the 'expanding Universe'

However i am stuck on where the random matter came from
May'be i need the religious forum:)
Life is too short NOT to wonder these things!

ynotdu

loads of thought-proving stuff in this Video IMO,containing some of the princibles of the theory to some extent but on a level more understanable to Me Professor ynotdu!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgS32CTEOYA

Kevster

ynotdu wrote: »

However i am stuck on where the random matter came from

What do you mean by 'random' matter? I view the Big Bang as a star 'exploding' too but, regarding matter, isn't all matter just energy cooled down? At the moment of the Big Bang, everything was just incredibly hot but, as it 'exploded' outwards, it cooled; and then once a certain temp. wes reached matter condensed out because it was sufficiently cool to do so..?

ynotdu

Kevster wrote: »

What do you mean by 'random' matter? I view the Big Bang as a star 'exploding' too but, regarding matter, isn't all matter just energy cooled down? At the moment of the Big Bang, everything was just incredibly hot but, as it 'exploded' outwards, it cooled; and then once a certain temp. wes reached matter condensed out because it was sufficiently cool to do so..?

Hi.ya Kevster,
basicly i mean where did even energy come from?There had to be 'something'before the big bang,where did ANYTHING come from
it's a rhetorical question and one i guess i will have to try figure for myself:eek:

Cheers

djhaxman

ynotdu wrote: »

Hi.ya Kevster,
basicly i mean where did even energy come from?There had to be 'something'before the big bang,where did ANYTHING come from
it's a rhetorical question and one i guess i will have to try figure for myself:eek:

Cheers

Expect a Nobel prize in physics and more money than you could ever hope to spend if you can figure that one out. The best scientific minds in the world don't know

ynotdu

djhaxman wrote: »

Expect a Nobel prize in physics and more money than you could ever hope to spend if you can figure that one out. The best scientific minds in the world don't know

Ah dang it think i will smoke blow,drop acid and drink 24/7.

This thinking 'thing' hurts my brain!:(:D

Sykk

Bear in mind - There were hundreds of other accepted theory's before Einstein and Hawkings came along. They could be miles off. Someone could come up with something else in the future that makes more sense.

After all, relativaty isn't compatible with EVERYTHING.

Why am I here at 4 AM . Gonna hit the sack.

-Nige

rccaulfield

Kevster wrote: »

It's a combination of a lot of things, rccaulfield, including the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the way that galaxies and stars have formed and evolved, and - yes - the Doppler effect comes into it too as we measure how far other celestial bodies are away from us (but more importantly the fact that most seem to be accelerating away from us).

Kevin

Ok (Devils advocate)cmb i find is looking for a cause when we have the answer. It just might be from something else until know unknown. The Dopler i've some ideas on how that might be giving misleading information to us, but the acceration might be the clincher!-Can you elaborate on how we know that celestial bodies are accelerating away? Thanks!

Kevster

We know that they're moving away from us because their wavelengths are 'shifted' towards the red end of the visible spectrum, I think. Im really not the best to answer this question.

If you can picture the Sun in front of you, you will see it as a yellow body - it is stationary. If it suddenly started to move towards you, the wavelength of it's emitted light would appear shorter than usual (i.e. towards the blue part of the spectrum). Conversely, if it suddenly started to move away from you, it's wavelenth would appear longer than usual (i.e. towards the red part of the spectrum).

Beeker

Kevster wrote: »

We know that they're moving away from us because their wavelengths are 'shifted' towards the red end of the visible spectrum, I think. Im really not the best to answer this question.

If you can picture the Sun in front of you, you will see it as a yellow body - it is stationary. If it suddenly started to move towards you, the wavelength of it's emitted light would appear shorter than usual (i.e. towards the blue part of the spectrum). Conversely, if it suddenly started to move away from you, it's wavelenth would appear longer than usual (i.e. towards the red part of the spectrum).

That's it Kevster, sounds correct to me! The further the wavelength is towards the red, the faster the object is moving away from us. This is just what we see.The further away the objects are from us the faster they seem to be moving.

Kevster

..phew! I'm sure Prof. Fink will have something to add though

When I first read that the further a bod is from us, the faster it is accelerating, I was thinking that 'reaching for the stars' (i.e. exploring outer worlds) is a pipe-dream.

Beeker

Kevster wrote: »

..phew! I'm sure Prof. Fink will have something to add though

When I first read that the further a bod is from us, the faster it is accelerating, I was thinking that 'reaching for the stars' (i.e. exploring outer worlds) is a pipe-dream.

Reaching for the stars is fine the problem would be other Galaxies. It seems that the expansion of the Universe is only on the large scale, ie between the Galaxies but not on a local level, ie between the stars
So we can still reach the stars:)

poppyvalley

MooseJam wrote: »

There was nothing, is it possible for the human mind to picture nothing, no time no space, usually when we picture nothing we imagine an absence of things but an empty void where things could be, can you imagine a total nothing where even nothing itself doesn't exist.

It's hard to put it into words does anybody know what i'm getting at ?

my threads keep vanishing ere i get chance 2 post them

ynotdu

Beeker wrote: »

Reaching for the stars is fine the problem would be other Galaxies. It seems that the expansion of the Universe is only on the large scale, ie between the Galaxies but not on a local level, ie between the stars
So we can still reach the stars:)

Well we are all in the gutter,but some of us have our eyes on the stars!:){one of lifes Truisms}

The expanding Universe though,where is it expanding to?somewhere that does not exist or does not exist yet?
Where is the end of Space?
can it be created by an expanding Universe or is there a limit that like a dying star. after our expanding universe stops expanding will it have to implode and go through the stages of white Dwarf then black hole ?{ again using a stars life as something we can conceive and have proof of,rather than theory's}

There are Stars that have twins that were drawn closer to them by one having a superior Gravitational field,but not enough to 'swallow up' the other star!
So many questions,so little 'relative' time!

wylo

MooseJam wrote: »

There was nothing, is it possible for the human mind to picture nothing, no time no space, usually when we picture nothing we imagine an absence of things but an empty void where things could be, can you imagine a total nothing where even nothing itself doesn't exist.

It's hard to put it into words does anybody know what i'm getting at ?

Heres a very interesting read regarding 'nothing' or the lack of it.
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%20universe%20from.htm

ynotdu

wylo wrote: »

Heres a very interesting read regarding 'nothing' or the lack of it.
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%20universe%20from.htm

Fascinating read wylo although beyond comprehension in parts as the Author freely admits:

Even if 'nothing'was always there meaning in theory nothing IS something

The Universe was ALWAYS there as part of 'nothingness'even though nothing by its nature is nothing,although he admits both would have to go hand in hand

using pure logic he makes the argument that there could not have been one in isolation.
i have not absorbed on first reading all he has to say,but i got to say he has thought it through to the limits of anybody who has!

his questioning of our 'perception'of time is valid IMO.

So where does that leave us?

AFAIK 'god' is Alpha and omega in all religions,So that logicly leaves two things,god is the beginning and the end of time,all the history and future of the universe are a nano-second(even less)in 'gods perception',but that cannot be true if there is an 'always'

the alternative that 'god'created the Universe in six days means that he knew he was creating fallen Angels and the Devil himself and could forsee that and the suffering it would cause,again that does not tally with a loving 'god'?

I used to put it down to the force of Evil or Good were 'unthinkinking'entitys,in the way Gravity does not say to itself I am going to keep this person glued to Earth but does it anyway!

Did you ever feel that our known universe is just a 'fish-bowl' in a much larger scheme of things,i know i do!

as much as religion is 'blind faith' i am beginning to think so too is the big bang theory!

both are equally 'unprovable' yet i find myself being brought back towards considering a 'Creator'of some type from this thread.

Phew!
Well thanks again for the link!:)

rccaulfield

Kevster wrote: »

We know that they're moving away from us because their wavelengths are 'shifted' towards the red end of the visible spectrum, I think. Im really not the best to answer this question.

If you can picture the Sun in front of you, you will see it as a yellow body - it is stationary. If it suddenly started to move towards you, the wavelength of it's emitted light would appear shorter than usual (i.e. towards the blue part of the spectrum). Conversely, if it suddenly started to move away from you, it's wavelenth would appear longer than usual (i.e. towards the red part of the spectrum).

Thanks Kevster- but again that comes back to the doppler effect which means that our whole theory of the big bang revolves around the premise that the doppler effect is fact. Which of course it is....for now- but what if something came to light about the nature of how light behaves when travelling large distances for example? Its a big what if but ....what if? Again its devils advocate and i am for current science 100%- i'm sure it has to do with my minds inability to understand the big bang and its implications!:(

Beeker

rccaulfield wrote: »

Thanks Kevster- but again that comes back to the doppler effect which means that our whole theory of the big bang revolves around the premise that the doppler effect is fact. Which of course it is....for now- but what if something came to light about the nature of how light behaves when travelling large distances for example? Its a big what if but ....what if? Again its devils advocate and i am for current science 100%- i'm sure it has to do with my minds inability to understand the big bang and its implications!:(

Thats just it.."the what if" question. The beauty of science is it is always asking "What if" and is willing to change it's thinking and theories based on new information and understanding. The big bank theory is jusr that a "Theory". It's a very compelling theory backed up by a lot of observation and research. It explains what we observe but leaves a lot of unanswered questions. What happened before?....What caused it?....as ynotdu asked what is it expanding it to?
I wish I knew the answeres to these questions but I don't. The great thing is that we have the ability to ask and the ability to work out the answers. We as a species are on the verge of discovering great truths in the universe and our place in it. Thanks to science and our desire for new information we stand a chance of answering some if not all of the "Big" questions.

wylo

ynotdu wrote: »

both are equally 'unprovable' yet i find myself being brought back towards considering a 'Creator'of some type from this thread.

Its fairly intense reading and its a topic that melts my brain to think about. Like him, the concept of a universe or 'something' having always existed is extremely frustrating but something I think I must accept.
I have not believed in a god since my teens. While I rarely mention this to anyone and rarely 'preach' my atheism, the one subject that makes me question my belief or non belief rather, is the creation of the universe.

wylo

ynotdu wrote: »

Did you ever feel that our known universe is just a 'fish-bowl' in a much larger scheme of things,i know i do!

I share this belief too, the universe may be just another spec in the vastness that is what would seem like an infinite existence. just like our planet is to the universe.

poppyvalley

MooseJam wrote: »

There was nothing, is it possible for the human mind to picture nothing, no time no space, usually when we picture nothing we imagine an absence of things but an empty void where things could be, can you imagine a total nothing where even nothing itself doesn't exist.

It's hard to put it into words does anybody know what i'm getting at ?

oh i know how your thinking. mindblowing stuff. We'll NEVER get answers, in fact the more answers the more questions. Quantum Physics may shed some light eventually,but i dont profess 2 know anything about this subject 'cept a little bit bout black holes i gleaned from reading Stephen Hawking. Thats where we're all heading.....Big bang and then it starts all over again.....theoretically

MooseJam

Can anyone tell me how we can look back billions of years, we were part of the big bang so why didn't all the light pass us by

poppyvalley

MooseJam wrote: »

There was nothing, is it possible for the human mind to picture nothing, no time no space, usually when we picture nothing we imagine an absence of things but an empty void where things could be, can you imagine a total nothing where even nothing itself doesn't exist.

It's hard to put it into words does anybody know what i'm getting at ?

dark energy, dark matter,...got it?

ynotdu

wylo wrote: »

Its fairly intense reading and its a topic that melts my brain to think about. Like him, the concept of a universe or 'something' having always existed is extremely frustrating but something I think I must accept.
I have not believed in a god since my teens. While I rarely mention this to anyone and rarely 'preach' my atheism, the one subject that makes me question my belief or non belief rather, is the creation of the universe.

but even 'Always' means there is time:eek:

*pulls hair out*

ynotdu

MooseJam wrote: »

Can anyone tell me how we can look back billions of years, we were part of the big bang so why didn't all the light pass us by

Well because We can see the light that is 'expanding' away from our posistion in our known universe,if the BB theory is correct it does not mean Earth was at the centre of it.......................

Beeker

ynotdu wrote: »

Well because We can see the light that is 'expanding' away from our posistion in our known universe,if the BB theory is correct it does not mean Earth was at the centre of it.......................

In fact every point in the Universe was at the centre of it

extremebogman

MooseJam wrote: »

Can anyone tell me how we can look back billions of years, we were part of the big bang so why didn't all the light pass us by

Part of it is the Cosmic Background Radiation that was mentioned earlier. It was predicted as a theory many years ago. (my understanding is basic, don't anyone hesitate to correct me) It is light from the 300,000 years after the beginning of the universe which has gone to a much higher wavelength and is now not on the visible spectrum. It was first observed by someone who wasn't actually looking for it earlier in the last century.

In the 90's a satellite found a variance in the cosmic background radiation for different parts of the world. This proved that areas in the early universe had different densities.

Anyway the original question about what came before the big bang, Simon Singh in his book said it was the same sort of question to ask 'what is north of the North Pole?'

B.T.W. the book is called Big Bang, probably a bit basic for some of you nerds intellectuals but he is a great writer, and gives metaphors to explain things.