What happened before the Big Bang?

Page 2 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.
Feb 28, 2020
51
22
1,555
On to particulars, that may be unknown to some: It is a misunderstanding to think of "big bang" as an explosion, it is simply the expansion in *every* volume that general relativity permit and which we see (from redshift, say). Let me repeat the observed facts: big bang is not an explosion, and the expansion is precisely as expected from a general relativistic universe
Space is a 'something' it's not a void. Its been called aether, quantum foam, quantum fields, vacuum energy, space-time fabric, dark energy etc. I'm not sure which is correct. Gravity can distort it. It's almost substance like. Even the video called it a ball of space (and energy). So why can't the big bang bang be called an explosion of 'space'?

The accepted view is that galaxies are not moving through space, it's that the space between galaxies is expanding.

If I make a ball of explosive and pack it with ball bearings, and detonate it, the ball bearings can be analogous to galaxies and the hot exploding gas analogous to expanding space. I can equally say here, that the ball bearings are not moving through the hot gas, but instead, it's the hot gas between the ball bearings expanding.

Also, galaxies are not held in place by space, because some have a blue shift and are coming towards us. The same in the bomb, the ball bearings are not held in place by the hot gas.

(Just in case you missed it, I also asked your opinion about that same ball of space in the video a bit higher up in this thread)

My question to you, please, is what is the difference between an explosion and an expansion?:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sopaconondas
Mar 19, 2020
291
42
1,730
Space is a 'something' it's not a void. Its been called aether, quantum foam, quantum fields, vacuum energy, space-time fabric, dark energy etc. I'm not sure which is correct. Gravity can distort it. It's almost substance like. Even the video called it a ball of space (and energy). So why can't the big bang bang be called an explosion of 'space'?

The accepted view is that galaxies are not moving through space, it's that the space between galaxies is expanding.

If I make a ball of explosive and pack it with ball bearings, and detonate it, the ball bearings can be analogous to galaxies and the hot exploding gas analogous to expanding space. I can equally say here, that the ball bearings are not moving through the hot gas, but instead, it's the hot gas between the ball bearings expanding.

Also, galaxies are not held in place by space, because some have a blue shift and are coming towards us. The same in the bomb, the ball bearings are not held in place by the hot gas.

(Just in case you missed it, I also asked your opinion about that same ball of space in the video a bit higher up in this thread)

My question to you, please, is what is the difference between an explosion and an expansion?
Coloquially, there is much different. I tend to of heard the expansion thing as an explanation for people who think the big bang was an explosion.
 
Jan 6, 2020
41
6
555
Firstly, let me state unequivocally that I am an atheist, ( although to coin a new term Agthiest; I feel that it is as ludicrous to try to PROVE there isn't a god as to try to prove there is one.), however that is besides the point. The question I am always asked, as I am sure all others are, is what created the initial " infinitely dense "spot." even taking into account the bounce theory.
Until we have the physics to answer that, and I'm not sure we ever will, how can I "prove" to biblical devotees that their theories regarding that a god created the universe, are totally and completely ludicrous?
Clive V
What created the initially "infinitely" dense spot?! I refer to this as my "garbage can" theory of introuniversal progression.

A "hyperuniverse" exists in which universes form through the accretion of extremely large numbers of black holes into single sprotouniversal black holes. When the accretion becomes dense enough, a threshold is crossed beyond which the contents of this superlative excess black hole begin to contract so quickly that from the perspective of the inside of this object, the sides of it appear to be receding at the speed of light. It is irrelevant in practical terms to an imaginary internal observer of this process whether the sides are receding due to an apparent "expansion" (they are not; this is a black hole with an escape velocity in the extreme high multiples of the speed of light), or if the contents of the object are uniformly contracting(shrinking) relative to everything else in it, causing it to appear within to be expanding at the speed of light to contained observers, which it in fact is. In other words, space looks like the universe is expanding, or being created when in fact the contents of the black hole which is the universe are shrinking relative to each other in an evidently endless "honey! I shrink the kids!" progression. I refer to this as a nested trash can progression, because inside this black hole form black holes, the rules for internal behavior of which vary according to mass and spin. There is a point in this continuum of singularities within singularities at which there is no longer enough mass to form internal singularities that appear to expand within through internal contraction. Perhaps some day we will be able to calculate the masses required to initiate this effect.
 
Jan 6, 2020
41
6
555
It occured to me as I finished my comment that the internal contraction must lead to a force reduction, allowing matter imperceptible previously owing to escape velocity considerations to come to within the speed of light envelope of the shrinking cluster of objects. This would contribute to the apparent expansion by revealing mass further away as its escape velocity relative to the receding objects within fell to below the speed of light, making a larger amount of mass relativistically available. It would then appear from within that more matter and space were being formed when in fact the area (space) of contiguous regional sunlight speed available masses increased. Masses previously hidden by superlightspeed escape velocity concealment wouldvbe increasingly revealed, "expanding" the then visible universe yet more.
 
Jan 6, 2020
41
6
555
It occured to me as I finished my comment that the internal contraction must lead to a force reduction, allowing matter imperceptible previously owing to escape velocity considerations to come to within the speed of light envelope of the shrinking cluster of objects. This would contribute to the apparent expansion by revealing mass further away as its escape velocity relative to the receding objects within fell to below the speed of light, making a larger amount of mass relativistically available. It would then appear from within that more matter and space were being formed when in fact the area (space) of contiguous regional sunlight speed available masses increased. Masses previously hidden by superlightspeed escape velocity concealment wouldvbe increasingly revealed, "expanding" the then visible universe yet more.
Not "sunlight" speed, SUBLIGHT speed. I hate my phone's autocorrect facility. Not being able to edit posted content on LiveScience doesn't help much either.
 
Mar 26, 2020
6
2
35
When Saint Augustine was asked what God was doing before creation, he replied that He was creating a Hell for people who asked such questions.
I won't trust very much saint Augustine, before becoming priest, he had two lovers, I ignore about their fate after Augustine broke away from them, and at least one kid: 'Adeodato' ('Given from god')
An spoof theater piece in Spanish: 'Don Mendo's revenge' cites a lusty woman, 'The unfortunate is more coquette than the classical chicken' -The reference sentence is: 'She is as ***** as chicken, who learnt swimming to f***' with ducks', when asked about the origin of this wild lust, a relative indicates: 'She is like an aunt, my younger sister doña Mencía, who married twice, and had fun with her two husbands'.
Saint Paul indicates 1Tim 3, 2: 'Bishop must be a single woman's man'; also 1Co 7, 27: 'Have you commitments with a woman?: Don't try to liberate yourself. Are you single?: don't look for an spouse'.
Jesus was harder: 'The one who divorces from his wife, unless because of prostitution, pushes her to adultery' (Mt 5, 32) (In the Bible, prostitution is both idolatry and paid sex).

Augustine said difference in concubinage and marriage is exclusion of prole in the first, but if you consider marriage was the only sacrament existing before Christ, administered by spouses each other, the issue has complex elements, as some tradition says having a full sexual act with a virgin woman equals a marriage to her.
A joke is students in Augustine order schools tend repeating life of founder: a period of 'wild living' before coming to the decent way; Amish baptism after leaving childhood is blamed of same.
'Saint' comes from Latin 'Sanctus', -Over 50 % of English Words have a Latin etymology- from 'Sanctio', both 'punishment' and 'ratification', close to Polynesian 'Taboo'.
Blessings +
 
May 10, 2020
4
1
10
Because there is a limit to just how small something can be there are no singularities. The smallest "piece" so to say is defined by the Planck Limit. There is a Planck Limit for the smallest unit of space and another for the smallest unit of time. Therefore, the smallest size the Universe could ever be is that Planck Limit. These limits emerge from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. For those who doubt this please recall that the Uncertainty Principle is regarded as the least uncertain thing in Physics. The Physics of the nature of space-time and time-space at the Planck Limits is a subject of great interest and among other things thought to be related to, the reason for and physics of, the nature of gravity.
 
Jan 6, 2020
41
6
555
Because there is a limit to just how small something can be there are no singularities. The smallest "piece" so to say is defined by the Planck Limit. There is a Planck Limit for the smallest unit of space and another for the smallest unit of time. Therefore, the smallest size the Universe could ever be is that Planck Limit. These limits emerge from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. For those who doubt this please recall that the Uncertainty Principle is regarded as the least uncertain thing in Physics. The Physics of the nature of space-time and time-space at the Planck Limits is a subject of great interest and among other things thought to be related to, the reason for and physics of, the nature of gravity.
In the notion of an evenly contracting universe, things like the Planck limit can exist within it. Your "yardstick" shrinks along with everything else and evident internal consistency is maintained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: niucame
May 10, 2020
4
1
10
In the notion of an evenly contracting universe, things like the Planck limit can exist within it. Your "yardstick" shrinks along with everything else and evident internal consistency is maintained.
So does this not still imply that are no singularities? You still have a Planck limit. Furthermore, relative to the underlying reality what would the significance be? Consider an underlying reality where our ideas of expansiveness have no or a different meaning or significance, for instance.
This could be framed as an ability to examine the nature of that greater reality and also the nature of time in that greater reality.
 

Urquiola

BANNED
Jan 18, 2020
38
2
555
Because there is a limit to just how small something can be there are no singularities. The smallest "piece" so to say is defined by the Planck Limit. There is a Planck Limit for the smallest unit of space and another for the smallest unit of time. Therefore, the smallest size the Universe could ever be is that Planck Limit. These limits emerge from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. For those who doubt this please recall that the Uncertainty Principle is regarded as the least uncertain thing in Physics. The Physics of the nature of space-time and time-space at the Planck Limits is a subject of great interest and among other things thought to be related to, the reason for and physics of, the nature of gravity.
This comment makes me feel good, I had the idea nothing can be compressed below the size of strings, but this rationale, close to calculations showing no temperatures below absolute zero (around minus 273º C) can exist, adds to the proposal that 'singularities' exist in the mathematician's minds, nowhere else.
Also, from a 'conceptual' point of view, I dislike the term 'philosophical', as long as anyone has a mental image of 'singularity', it has a dimension, no longer exists as 'singularity', same as 'nil', 'absolute empty'; once it have a name, it have a content in someone's mind. Do they?
Blessings +
 
May 10, 2020
4
1
10
This comment makes me feel good, I had the idea nothing can be compressed below the size of strings, but this rationale, close to calculations showing no temperatures below absolute zero (around minus 273º C) can exist, adds to the proposal that 'singularities' exist in the mathematician's minds, nowhere else.
Also, from a 'conceptual' point of view, I dislike the term 'philosophical', as long as anyone has a mental image of 'singularity', it has a dimension, no longer exists as 'singularity', same as 'nil', 'absolute empty'; once it have a name, it have a content in someone's mind. Do they?
Blessings +
An interesting approach to examining reality beyond Planck limits is looking at the nature of entanglement. With entanglement we see a phenomena where something, light, of which whatever granular nature it has, has existence that spreads seemingly through out what we interpret as being essentially the whole of our Universe. Light has been shown to exhibit entanglement between our sun and the earth. And now light from billions of light years away has too. Attempts to assume some kind of velocity to the phenomena indicate a minimum velocity of 50,000 times the speed of light, a limit related to the limits of the precision of our ability to measure time. In reality, it actually is truly instantaneous. Of course, there is also a Planck time limit to that also.
So the underlying nature of reality has a property of where, at the very least, the granularity of reality is larger than our universe. It is as if the delta 'x' part of the Uncertainty Principle is larger than what we consider to be our Universe.
This is the nature of whatever the 'Big Bang' emerged from.
Furthermore, we are not excluded from examining that reality because we are part of it and can even manipulate it. We know that it has time in some nature because the Big Bang emerged from it, time being an intrinsic part of emergence .
 
Mar 9, 2020
3
0
510
Cyclic universe is the concept defined in Vedas. But there is a difference; during expansion, objects are born one by one, and during contraction objects die one by one, according to their scheduled destiny, just like humans do. After they all die, they remain dead, for a long period, again like humans do, only to reincarnate. Every object in the universe has a soul, and that soul is the creator of that object. Therefore, there is no need for big bang between cycles. If you observe data carefully, you will find that concept hidden in your measurements.

Measurements or observations of nature can never prove any theories. This is so because, all our theories have assumptions and nature will automatically reject them. To prove a theory you must prove all assumptions first, just like it is done in engineering. Before Galileo, everybody observed that sun goes around the earth. That data was correct, but the theory was wrong, earth goes round the sun. For some details of the cyclic theory of Vedas take a look at the Quora answer at https://qr.ae/pG7X4t and references mentioned there.
 
Apr 22, 2021
1
0
10
I have no background in physics or astronomy but i have always philosophised about the origins of our universe.
If we are the most intelligent lifeform in the universe could it be possible that because of our determination to find out how it all started, we will inevitably eventually not only find out how to but actually cause the next big bang ( nuclear fusion/fission ? )
Could our evolution and our survival instinct be a way for the universe to secure its own ''reset''? If no energy source is endless could this big bounce be a way for the universe to survive.?
implode with enough force back to 1 atom to preserve the power to grow back to its potential size
i am just philosophising
(sorry for any spelling mistakes. English is not my first language)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS