The Big Bang mind-bender

confusedquark

I caught a glimpse of a recent Stephen Hawking documentary on TV today and he essentially said that the universe was "self-born", and that nothing existed prior to it, including time.

That opinion I really can't get my head around (and opinion it is, because science will go so far as to demonstrating that the big bang happened, can estimate roughly how long ago it did, and can explain what's happening in the universe since then - anything beyond that is speculation and opinion). Like, how was there absolutely nothing, and then a spontaneous bang, et voila, you have stars, planets and walking and talking beings. I suppose if a person doesn't believe in a greater power, there isn't really an alternate opinion that one can have.

My beliefs of a greater power creating the universe and initiating the big bang has it's own mind-benders. If God has "always existed", which we believe, how does that make any sense? Talking about infinity is all good and well, but when you consider time going infinitely back into the past - things/beings being there not from Day 1, because there was no Day 1, but were just always there... It's just mad. The concept of space is the other thing I struggle with along the same lines. How big is the universe? What's outside that space if we can define how big the universe is. Is space also infinite is all directions then, and like time, is it another unfathomable thing?

Is there a point to this post? Well, theists and atheists are always trying to prove one another wrong by logic. Whether it's the "look around you and how beautifully everything is created, there must be a creator" logic, or the "the only reason we're here is because the universe happened to expand as it did, and if it hadn't done, we simply wouldn't have been here to debate it" logic (as well as the countless other arguments on both sides). But ultimately, we can't really use logic to prove or disprove the existence of a greater power, because neither side actually makes sense. It's just mad, and you can go years not thinking about it, and then it'll hit you.

lucky333

Omg you are inside my head. Those are my thoughts, all of them. Now I know I'm not alone. Thank you..

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

I caught a glimpse of a recent Stephen Hawking documentary on TV today and he essentially said that the universe was "self-born", and that nothing existed prior to it, including time.

That opinion I really can't get my head around (and opinion it is, because science will go so far as to demonstrating that the big bang happened, can estimate roughly how long ago it did, and can explain what's happening in the universe since then - anything beyond that is speculation and opinion). Like, how was there absolutely nothing, and then a spontaneous bang, et voila, you have stars, planets and walking and talking beings. I suppose if a person doesn't believe in a greater power, there isn't really an alternate opinion that one can have.

I have never actually heard it described as nothing (least not from a scientist). Usually it is described a singularity, a point of infinite (or near infinite) energy, which expands into the universe.

Another way to look at "absolutely nothing" (if that was the case) is that if there was absolutely nothing, then there was absolutely nothing to stop a universe from spontaneously coming into existence. And given that the same theories predict that universe will eventually reverse its expansion and return to the absolutely nothing it came from, that would imply that overall, the change is absolutely nothing.

Tom Dunne

I'm not sure I understand how this relates to Islam?

confusedquark

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand how this relates to Islam?

A general discussion about the existence of the universe from a theistic (enter Islam) and athestic perspective surely qualifies?

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have never actually heard it described as nothing (least not from a scientist). Usually it is described a singularity, a point of infinite (or near infinite) energy, which expands into the universe.

Another way to look at "absolutely nothing" (if that was the case) is that if there was absolutely nothing, then there was absolutely nothing to stop a universe from spontaneously coming into existence. And given that the same theories predict that universe will eventually reverse its expansion and return to the absolutely nothing it came from, that would imply that overall, the change is absolutely nothing.

I don't get how matter/mass can spring up out of nothing. The singularity does make sense from the point of view of near infinite energy being converted into mass, but then you'd have to wonder where all that energy came from in the first place. And when/if the big crunch happens, will we (not that we'll be here!) be left with the same near-infinite energy?

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

I don't get how matter/mass can spring up out of nothing. The singularity does make sense from the point of view of near infinite energy being converted into mass, but then you'd have to wonder where all that energy came from in the first place. And when/if the big crunch happens, will we (not that we'll be here!) be left with the same near-infinite energy?

Matter and energy are fairly interchangeable at small enough levels (light is both a particle and a wave), so a singularity of energy converting into matter is not impossible.
As far as I understand it (you would need to talk to a physicist), matter/energy spontaneously comes into existence on a quantum level all the time.
The energy doesn't come from anywhere in the first place, because there is no first place. Remember that time started with the Big Bang too, so there is no "before" the Big Bang. That energy didn't have to come from anywhere.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As far as I understand it (you would need to talk to a physicist), matter/energy spontaneously comes into existence on a quantum level all the time.

I find that hard to believe. I'm sure they interchange at the quantum level, but don't see how either could just come into existence without an interchange.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The energy doesn't come from anywhere in the first place, because there is no first place. Remember that time started with the Big Bang too, so there is no "before" the Big Bang. That energy didn't have to come from anywhere.

The "there is no 'before' the Big Bang" is an opinion which has little scientific basis, as far as I'm aware. That energy still has to 'be' there at the big bang.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

I find that hard to believe. I'm sure they interchange at the quantum level, but don't see how either could just come into existence without an interchange.

About the only thing I know for sure about quantum mechanics is that its very non-intuitive. But you would need to ask a physicist to find out for sure.

confusedquark wrote: »

The "there is no 'before' the Big Bang" is an opinion which has little scientific basis, as far as I'm aware. That energy still has to 'be' there at the big bang.

If the Big Bang happened, then there is no "before" the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the expansion of space-time from the universal singularity. You can't have a "before" without time existing, hence there is no "before" the expansion (the expansion being what created time). While the energy is "there" ("there" not really meaning anything as space didn't exist, but I get your meaning), it is not subject to time (as time doesn't exist "until" the expansion starts) and therefore is not subject to causality as we understand it.

When you start discussing the Big Bang you need to put inverted commas on everything as humans don't really have the syntax to describe a timeless-spaceless state properly, and we shouldn't forget that when making assertions. There is no more a "before" the Big Bang than there is a "north" of the north pole.

Tom Dunne

confusedquark wrote: »

A general discussion about the existence of the universe from a theistic (enter Islam) and athestic perspective surely qualifies?

I'm not so sure it does.

Moved from the Islam forum.

Peregrinus

I’m not a physicist either but FWIW my understanding is more or less the same as Mark’s.

Mass and energy are basically the same thing and, while it’s difficult for us to understand that mass/energy can pop into existence from nothingness, quantum mechanics (I’m assured by those who know) predicts that it inevitably (but randomly) will pop into existence from nothingness.

Where I stumble is over this concept of “absolutely nothing”. I get that nothingness means that there is neither mass nor energy in existence, but if “nothingness” can be described in terms of laws (even laws, which, like the laws of quantum mechanics, predict randomness) then it’s not actually nothingness, because there’s some predictable, or at least describable, behaviour going on there. There was, at a minimum, a set of conditions which are describable to the extent of being described by the laws of quantum mechanics. And a describable set of conditions is not “absolutely nothing”.

We could, I suppose, hypothesise that our universe consists entirely of mass/energy and nothing else, and therefore that whatever it is that the laws of quantum mechanics describe is not mass/energy (it’s the conditions in which mass/energy can pop into existence) and therefore it’s not part of our universe and therefore it’s nothing to us.

Whether that’s the way physicists understand it or not, I cannot say. But it looks to me at least vaguely coherent.

An analogy (and it’s only an analogy) might be an imagined world - say, the Harry Potter world which exists (to the extent that it exists at all) in the shared imagination of JK Rowling and her readers. JK Rowling is not part of the Harry Potter world, but her imagination is the set of conditions which enables imagined worlds to come into “being”. And, while it wasn’t inevitable that the Harry Potter world is one that would come into being, as the events have unfolded it has come into being.

Of course, this begins to look like a theistic argument, in which what’s outside, behind, around the Big Bang is a creator - not JK Rowling, but God. And (I swear, Mark!) I am not making that argument. JK Rowling has a mind, a will, intentions; we have absolutely no reason to think that the nothingness/set of conditions which enabled our universe to pop into existence did, and from my limited understanding of quantum mechanics it is conceived of as operating randomly. We can suggest that our universe’s relationship with the antecedent nothingness is analogous to the Harry Potter world’s relationship with JK Rowling’s mind without thinking that absolute nothingness is in any way comparable to JK Rowling.

confusedquark

Tom, fair enough.

Mark, I do get what you're saying. But I don't know how sure we can be that there was no "before" the big bang. Maybe not in time as we know it, but perhaps from the perspective of another external "time" that might exist outside our bubble.

Peregrinus (hello, btw), Yeah, I (kinda) get what you're saying. It's interesting, and I'd like to learn more about the quantum realm - even just to know enough about it to have some grounds from which to form an opinion on things, but it's probably one of those things that you need to have a 4 year physics degree under your belt before you can even join the conversation.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Tom, fair enough.

Mark, I do get what you're saying. But I don't know how sure we can be that there was no "before" the big bang. Maybe not in time as we know it, but perhaps from the perspective of another external "time" that might exist outside our bubble.

Sure, and I understand what you are saying, we do need a word to use for this and 'before' is what comes to most peoples mind. The reason I was strong on there being no "before" the big bang is because in other discussions I've had on this, people tend to get stuck on the idea that causality (as we know it) applies to the Big Bang. I automatically try and get people away from that thinking.

confusedquark wrote: »

Peregrinus (hello, btw), Yeah, I (kinda) get what you're saying. It's interesting, and I'd like to learn more about the quantum realm - even just to know enough about it to have some grounds from which to form an opinion on things, but it's probably one of those things that you need to have a 4 year physics degree under your belt before you can even join the conversation.

Maybe go to one of the science forums ("Popular Science" and "Physics & Chemistry") and ask for some beginner guides? I'm sure they will steer you right .

Notus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The reason I was strong on there being no "before" the big bang is because in other discussions I've had on this, people tend to get stuck on the idea that causality (as we know it) applies to the Big Bang. I automatically try and get people away from that thinking.

So you automatically ignore anyone who doesn't agree with your theory? Not very scientific

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe go to one of the science forums ("Popular Science" and "Physics & Chemistry") and ask for some beginner guides? I'm sure they will steer you right .

school yard platitudes are funny, I like "fuck of big ears" myself but everyone to their own.

A very simplistic retort would be to ask nicely how much of the physics of the universe is truly understood, do you think Einstein was right? never to be questioned or indeed proven incorrect?

The question of something from nothing and the reply of "there was not time" is not a proven or logical standpoint as far as I know.

Mark Hamill

Notus wrote: »

So you automatically ignore anyone who doesn't agree with your theory? Not very scientific

Where did I say that?

Notus wrote: »

school yard platitudes are funny, I like "fuck of big ears" myself but everyone to their own.

I have no idea what you are talking about

Notus wrote: »

The question of something from nothing and the reply of "there was not time" is not a proven or logical standpoint as far as I know.

The big bang theory says that the universe (including space/time) expanded from a singularity (a hot dense state) a finite time in the past. Therefore (A) there wasn't really nothing (there was a hot dense state, not well described by the physics of our universe and so sometimes mistake for "nothing") and (B) as there was no time, even if there was nothing, our notions of causality would not apply to stop something coming from that nothing.
I've already gone through this, you need to read the thread.

Nate--IRL--

Mark Hamill wrote: »

..........And given that the same theories predict that universe will eventually reverse its expansion and return to the absolutely nothing it came from, that would imply that overall, the change is absolutely nothing.

Ummm isn't the Expansion accelerating? The Universe is heading to a Heat Death is it not?

Nate

Mark Hamill

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Ummm isn't the Expansion accelerating? The Universe is heading to a Heat Death is it not?

Nate

eh maybe?:o
I'm not that read up on all the various possibilities for how the universe ends, "The Big Crunch" was simply one I knew of.
Looking it up though, it seems that heat death can be associated with either a universe that eventually contracts and collapses again, or a universe that expands forever.

Peregrinus

Since we're here, perhaps somebody can clear up another aspect of big bang theory that puzzles me.

We reckon that the big bang happened about 13.8 billion years ago, give or take. At the big bang all matter came into existence in a tiny, incredibly hot and dense mass, and immediately began expanding. Since then all matter has been expanding outwards from a central point. The limits of the universe are now 15.9 billion light years from that point.

You see the problem? The matter at the limits of the universe has travelled 15.9 billion light years in 13.8 billion years, implying that for at least some of that time it has been travelling faster than light, which is of course impossible.

Am I missing something? Or does big bang cosmology assert that in the very early period after the big bang faster-than-light movement was possible?

confusedquark

Just googled it, and apparently space can expand faster than the speed of light, but matter can't. So the expanding space sort of piggy-backs matter along - within that space matter is moving slower than light, but relative to other matter in a different space expanding in a different direction, it would appear to be greater than the speed of light.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/07/31/the-size-of-the-universe-a-har/

endacl

Try Lawrence Krauss's 'A Universe from Nothing' for a readable and non-jargony explanation of your question, OP. He also delivers an entertaining lecture by the same title. Search YouTube. There are several versions available. I'd give a synopsis here, but I'm on the phone, and Krauss does a better job than I could.

riffmongous

Peregrinus wrote: »

Since we're here, perhaps somebody can clear up another aspect of big bang theory that puzzles me.

We reckon that the big bang happened about 13.8 billion years ago, give or take. At the big bang all matter came into existence in a tiny, incredibly hot and dense mass, and immediately began expanding. Since then all matter has been expanding outwards from a central point. The limits of the universe are now 15.9 billion light years from that point.

You see the problem? The matter at the limits of the universe has travelled 15.9 billion light years in 13.8 billion years, implying that for at least some of that time it has been travelling faster than light, which is of course impossible.

Am I missing something? Or does big bang cosmology assert that in the very early period after the big bang faster-than-light movement was possible?

Here you go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_than_light#Universal_expansion
It's tough to explain, but it's not about the matter travelling but the space expanding.

I am pretty sure at the moment the evidence points towards a forever expanding universe.. I also had a suspicion that the Big Crunch theory gained a lot of its credibility because it was 'convenient', you could get a never ending cycle of crunching and banging universes, which is easier to understand than a single bang that leads to an eternally expanding and ultimately dead universe

riffmongous

What I struggle with is the concept of infinity and singularities, how can something that is infinite become finite again? I think the phrase 'goes to infinity' is much more useful than saying something is infinite

p1akuw47h5r3it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

Have a watch of that. Is a lecture by Lawrence Krauss called A Universe from Nothing. Will help to answer some of your questions.