Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

What came before the big bang?

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico

Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Location
Terran Federation
Not the TV show, I mean. The other one. Something had to exist. I refuse to believe in "nothing". Nothing doesn't exist. The space "that we know it" was there. Even if it was some hell-ish vacuum. That's still something. Thoughts?
 
P Y R E said:
I think there were 'stars' all doing their own thing until the big bang happened. Like blackness, then ....life. however, if you really think about it, how are we to know planets like ours didn't exist, then die out as we formed just from their own age. I think the universe is always revolving, and evolving.
Click to expand...
Good point, but what came before that?

What came before nothing? No one has that answer. Even the science folk!
 
Asking what was before the big bang is really a nonsensical question. It's like arguing over where is the Earth's surface on Mars. Saying something can't exist because you don't understand it is not really how the world works. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you personally.

With the current accepted understanding of inflationary cosmology, the concept of time as we understand begins at the moment of the big bang.

There are of course other models than the inflationary model. For instance in the CCC model by Penrose you do have a concept of what was before the big bang. There's a number (8 at the moment) youtube videos that talk about what were before the big bang in a scientific way
View: https://youtu.be/IFcQuEw0oY8
 
Another universe on the same brane with different rules but the same destiny. Or that’s what some string theorists suggest.
 
Yes that's also a possibility (I think they discuss just that in the last video of the above mentioned series). However one can only really think of a model as a theory if it makes predictions better than other models. And in that sense the inflationary model is the best we have for the beginning of the universe.
 
I thought the general theory was that it was like... a super cluster of mass and energy before it exploded? And they think that when the universe's heat death happens, it'll slowly collapse into the same thing before another Big Bang happens.
 
Phantasma said:
I thought the general theory was that it was like... a super cluster of mass and energy before it exploded? And they think that when the universe's heat death happens, it'll slowly collapse into the same thing before another Big Bang happens.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. The fast and easy explanation is:

The theory of the big bang is really an expansion of the fabric of space - let me stress it: There was no explosion, nothing exploded, it is the space in the universe that expands. For the first fraction of a second after the expansion began is called the inflation, the universe expanded with a factor 2 per Planck time (or something like that - that's to anyone caring about it - an insane amount). So in a fraction of a second it ended up being something like 10,000+ light years across. The inflation stops there but the universe keeps on expanding - or more precisely the space keeps expanding.
Then from this state the forces of nature start to condense. Most likely gravity first then the strong and weak forces split from the em-force. Then particles starts to form and within 3 minutes all atomic nuclei are created in the abundance that can still be seen today (75% H, 25% He, and trace amounts of Li). After three minutes the universe have cooled down so much that these processes stopped. Because of the temperature the universe at this point it opaque.
The universe keeps on expanding and after about 300,000 years the temperature is so low that the nuclei and free electrons combine to atoms and the universe becomes transparent. The light from this early universe is what we today see in the microwave background radiation.

The universe keeps on expanding and recent data (1999 I think) show that the acceleration is speeding up. That means some sort of unknown (AKA dark) energy is making the universe expand faster and faster. That will eventually cause objects that are not gravitationally bound to come out of causal contact (they'd be so far apart that the light from one will not have time to ever reach the other). There will be no collapse if these observations are correct but rather an end with a grey and dull universe where eventually everything have been ripped apart (in the VERY far future).

I've most likely made a few mistakes in the above. So correct me if I've made a grievous mistake ;D
 
It's a good thing opinions are free around here so I'll drop my two cents worth.

All through history folks have believed a lot of crap only to be proven otherwise later down the track. Generally when we don't really know about something we naturally lean towards a hypothesis that tends to make the most scientific sense. For little other reason than the one I just mentioned, I choose to believe the Big Bang probably didn't even happen, and therefore nothing came before it.

I like the notion of a Big Daddy sitting upstairs and throwing his weight around, chuckling all the way at us clueless bastards.
 
Bob said:
Generally when we don't really know about something we naturally lean towards a hypothesis that tends to make the most scientific sense.
Click to expand...
That's not true at all. There is no such thing as scientific sense.

Science don't really care about opinions. What does matter however is if a theory can explain observed phenomena and make predictions.

The inflationary model does just that. It explains why the universe is expanding among other things and it predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background.

You might want to say that you don't want to believe it because you don't understand it. But just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't make it untrue. What makes the inflationary model the best explanation thus far is that it - unlike any notion of supernatural entities - can actually make predictions that can be used to disprove or verify the theory.
 
strangelove said:
That's not true at all. There is no such thing as scientific sense.

Science don't really care about opinions. What does matter however is if a theory can explain observed phenomena and make predictions.

The inflationary model does just that. It explains why the universe is expanding among other things and it predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background.

You might want to say that you don't want to believe it because you don't understand it. But just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't make it untrue. What makes the inflationary model the best explanation thus far is that it - unlike any notion of supernatural entities - can actually make predictions that can be used to disprove or verify the theory.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. ? You mean, in your opinion?

What I meant by, and I quote: "Generally when we don't really know about something we naturally lean towards a hypothesis that tends to make the most scientific sense." is that we generally lean toward things that make the most sense, scientifically. What you replied with, and I quote: "There is no such thing as scientific sense." suggests that science doesn't make sense. Well... I can assure you right now that science has discovered many things, and has actually made sense in establishing those discoveries.

Having something make sense doesn't always imply options either, but look at things in the light of that assumption if you so choose.

As for the inflationary model, all it does is establish hypothesis, and I'm guessing the hypothesis makes sense to you?

Furthermore, I never said I wanted anything. All I said is I like the notion of something other than what science has to offer on this subject. If you believe in the scientific theory, well that's just fine by me.

You also happened to mention, and I quote you again: "But just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't make it untrue." Well, I just might be inclined to say the same to you.

Overall, I think you missed the point of my post. The only truths in this world are what you believe. You're entitled to your textbook opinion, as I am entitled to mine.
 
Bob said:
Overall, I think you missed the point of my post. The only truths in this world are what you believe.
Click to expand...

Add two and two together and the answer is still four regardless of mine or anyone else's belief. Measure the distance to the Moon, the answer doesn't change based on subjective belief. We have a word for 'faith in the moment to moment continuity of reality', it is called 'sanity'. You can have faith that God will rapture you tomorrow, sell all your possessions and donate the proceeds. It won't work out for you.

The metric expansion of space is only slightly less rigorously physically established than any singular physical measurement. At this point the only explanation that doesn't involve a deity actively deceiving us is that 'before' the Big Bang the space we exist in now didn't exist. In the same fashion that the spacetime inside of a black hole didn't exist prior to its formation. Time and radial coordinates switch in such frames. Before the Big Bang / after you reach the singularity of a Black Hole is 'further in than the center'.

We can make predictions regarding the metric expansion of spacetime, and observations accordingly, and once we reach the stars this information will in fact have use.

Believing in a trickster god doesn't get you anywhere.
 
in the end i don't think we are meant to know the truth, we won't know who is right till death. Life after death, whos right. Spirit lives on or becomes nothing, who or what created the world. I don't think the living will ever find out the answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom