Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Saru

Before The Big Bang

67 posts in this topic

Here's a question to get you all thinking : What existed before the Big Bang ? If there was something before the big bang, how did it get there and what was around before that ? :-/

The depth of the ultimate question of the universe is almost impossible to imagine.

Ideas and comments welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Well, I had a 14 acre lot with an abundance of trees and a nice little fishing pond, but no neighbors. Thought I'd expand the horizon a little, you don't like it? ;) ;D

  Wow, I didn't think I'd have to break out my thesis from M.I.T. to help me form a response to this thread.:P It is the ultimate question though, isn't it? Theories abound, and one could easily develop a splitting headache trying to make sense of it all. The only ones who seem to have a definitive answer are the creationists &/or those of certain religious persuasions, but it isn't based on any credible scientific data. That is just an observation by the way, so please don't flame me. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and their justification for them, however un-scientific they may seem.

  It may well be that this is a question that will remain unanswered for eternity.

Magikman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a well put reply. I read somewhere on the internet(not sure exactly which sight)that the big bang could have been started by another universe from a parellel dimension "bumping into" the edge of its "frontier"(where the two different dimensions meet), creating what we call the big bang from our universe.

Like Magikman stated, I dont think anyone will ever know. For one thing, how would one find the evidence to support ANY theory, much less the rediculous one I just wrote, which isnt even my theory ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its probably not even possible for humans to comprehend the real truth behind the dawn of existence. The human brain is probably incapable of perceiving such a complex and mind-numbingly difficult thing to grasp.

Trying to come up with what existed before the universe began is enough to give Einstein a headache. I don't think there's much chance of anyone coming up with a truly satisfactory explanation. There are of course theories, but being able to prove what happened before the universe was born is futile, given the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever.

It's one of these questions that just can't be answered, but that won't stop generations of scientists for centuries to come, having a dam good go at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homer,

 You probably read about it at the Space.com website where your email address originates from. Here is a little snippet of the theory;

Think parallel branes and five dimensions. Science never sounded so cool.

The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved. But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time.

These membranes, or "branes" as theorists call them, would have floated like sheets of paper through a fifth dimension that even scientists admit they find hard to picture intuitively. (Our conventional view of 3-D physical space, along with time, make up the four known dimensions.)

  The idea, put forth earlier this month at a Space Telescope Science Institute meeting in Baltimore, is based on other theories about possible multiple dimensions that are growing in acceptance. It was developed by Neil Turok of Cambridge University, Burt Ovrut of the University of Pennsylvania, and Paul Steinhardt and Justin Khoury of Princeton University.

"The [Ekpyrotic] scenario is that our current universe is [a] four-dimensional membrane embedded in a five-dimensional 'bulk' space, something like a sheet of paper in ordinary three-dimensional space," Turok told SPACE.com. "The idea then is that another membrane collided with ours, releasing energy and heat and leading to the expansion of our universe."

  Its interesting to note that the existance of  another dimension is looked at as the origin of alot of UFO's and other phenomena. Of course that still doesn't answer the question about the vastness of space and the time and energy it would take to even find us, but.....

Magikman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magikman

Thanks for the reminder, I forgot where I read that.

As you stated, a parellel universe or multiple dimensions always seem to surface as possible scenarios when talking about the universe or UFO's.

But what that theory doesnt explain is how the FIRST dimension(s) originated.

And since my puny human 3 dimensional brain cant comprehend that stuff, I try not to dwell on it too much.

Homer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists believe that a human cannot go that far into space because most of the sights would be far beyond out brains ability to process, hence killing us.  But, if Einstiens theory is correct, and if space is curved, I think that a man could leave Earth and travel out into deep space only to end up back at Earth with no idea of how he got back.  The mind, in my opinion, just could see it.  And, before the big bang, perhaps that too is something that we are not ready to see yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this "dawn of existance" stuff is now giving me a headache

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farv,

 I know you're one for outrageous claims, but your last is really absurd. Could you show me where any competent scientist has made this rather ludicrous statement;

"Scientists believe that a human cannot go that far into space because most of the sights would be far beyond out brains ability to process, hence killing us."

 What exactly is it we are doing by exploring the farthest reaches of space with the Hubble telescope? Neither have I heard about a mass extinction of astronomers lately. Or is it your contention that the telescope is equipped with some special 'filter' that eliminates the 'killing' effect of the picture? Does man only suffer this 'brain embolism' when he attempts to 'physically' view outer space? Just curious.  :-/

MAGIKMAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thing Farv

When Einstein stated that the universe is curved, he wasn't implying it was like a race track, where one would just travel 'around' the universe and end up where you left. Light travels in a straight line, until an outside force acts upon it. Gravity caused by dense matter is what causes space to be curved. That being said, if you was to leave in a straight line going away from Earth, you would continue to travel that path until it's disrupted by an outside force IE either something hits you, you hit something, or gravity manipulates your direction. None of which would imply that you would end back at Earth.

By the way, Einsteins theory was proven correct after witnessing a solar eclipse.

Homer[glow=color,strength,width]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this topic is more metaphysical.  If there was nothing before something, then something is not real. When there are no forces to create something, there is nothing. I've thought about this question my whole life and i've came to the conclusion that reality is fake, but i obviously do not understand how fakeness can be created from nothing.  AHHHHHH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now i have a headache. :s01     what i don't understand is everything we have to have a beginning, a middle and an end.how can a beginning come from nothing? 'nothing', really doesn't exist either does it?      to state the obvious.....'nothing' is a sum of removed parts totalling zero.you have to have something to take away to get/have nothing. yep i got brainache too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm learning about this in my science class this year. According to my book, scientists believe that there was a huge chunk of matter in the center of the Universe that was somewhat like a star. But this object was so small that it couldn't hold so much energy that was being put out and therefore exploded. Sort of like a supernova, eh? I think that this "star" wasn't created out of normal material. Maybe it was created by what little energy there was in the empty space around it. You know, there was supposedly space around, but nothing like planets. After it absorbed this energy, it could have made its own energy after that and start shining, and then explode... That's my theory........ I'm confusing everyone aren't I?

:sdboo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, what if there are more planes of existance than the five we know about? One of those planes could have seed this dimension to see what would happen, like a big out of control science product. I'm sure if and when we are able to go out and explore space and experience it first hand we might see how things actually work and obtain a better knowledge base of our surroundings. Doing space reasearch from a planetary base is limited we need to what experiences we have dealt with on Earth, but we can't compare them to what happens in space because space has its own set of rules.

:s6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Question is RHETORICAL .......and cant be dis-assembled...... Hence I think this thread has lost its life-span.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I hope I'm not out of line here but I've been reading some of the back posts and this post and the one about Zero point energy are among some of the stuff that has captured my interest for the past year or so.

I have one basic thought, that is - once there was nothing and now we are here. That leaves me with the problem of finding out how to get something from nothing, hmmm, not too hard to do --- yeah right lol.

But then came along ZPE and virtual particles, there is some wiggle room here.

I've been on some physics forums and to tell you the truth, I don't understand much of what they say or how they communicate. I'm not that smart. I'm not good at math but I can understand that somehow something came from nothing. I even alluded to this in my BIO when I joined here. Einstein knew that there was a simple clean answer to this problem but he died before he could put his finger on it, poor Albert - he is my mentor.

My thoughts have recently gone to the area of vacuum expansion, I like what its telling me.

I had better stop here because I can talk about this subject forever and I don't want to put anyone off or cause my friends here not to want to talk to me, thinking I'm an old wind bag...actually I am an old wind bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

j6p,

Very interesting stuff, isn't it? I like Einstein as well, a very intelligent person, relatively speaking biggrin.gif

About virtual particles, and creating something out of nothing, have you read anything on Stephen Hawking? Hawking Radiation is what I'm refering to. I'm not going to explain it in a post, but look into it if you have time. It explains the creation of particles out of nothing, and to make it interesting, whenever particles are created out of nothing, both positive and negative charged particles are created. Matter and antimatter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the life has not gone out of it just yet.In fact I'm going to ressurect it . (Hahahaha Life damn it I give you life *maniacle laugh*)

In a scientific sense the universe was created by the Big Bang when a small burnt out star imploaded in on itself or there abouts right .So I would think the best theory for what came before the Big bang is an strugle of forces retracting in on each other and then forcing out.Big bang to burnt out star to big bang and so on .

As to the 5 dimensional universe theory I don't by it . I think the human race has limited itself to 3 dimensional thinking for long enough , there must be dozens of dimensions that we haven't classified yet . By this I mean the first 4 dimensions Hieght ,width , Depth and time are all measurements as are gravity and other forces like pressure and then the more philosophical dimensions like change and growth.

Five dimensions is too limited.

Now for the theory I really liked as with Mentalcase I find it Impossible to visualise or even comprehend absolute nothing.

Perhaps life as we know it is more of a Universal consiousness working from a pin point of light , creating a physical world from the collective imaginations of everyone.

I love this stuff biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aww you guys ...........It took me so long to type that out it took the edge off my resurection dry.gifbiggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im glad someone loves discussing these topics. they bore the hell out of me. i took a philosophy class on quantum mechanics once and i vowed to never speak of the subject again. part of the reason was that i felt most of the people in that class were just a bunch of old windbags, HAHA! wink.gif

personally, i believe its impossible for us to understand the nature of the universe and why we exist. anything we choose to believe is truth is just an illusion that will be overturned by a future generation with the same confidence in its view as we have in ours. all fools to me smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Homer and Kismet, I recently got through with Hawkings "Universe in a Nut Shell", tell you the truth the only viable bit of useful information I gleaned from it was when he described how a virtual particle would react near the event horizon of a black hole. Actually it was well worth reading the entire book for just this one bit of info, I do like Hawkings he reminds me of Timothy Leary before he (Timothy) deep fried his brain.

Back to Hawkings: He explains how a virtual particle (VP) would pop into existence at the event horizon and before it could annihliate, half would be drawn into the black hole and half would escape. Stephen explains that this is how a black hole would appear to be radiating when we know that a black hole can't radiate. It's these VP's that have been turned into real particles that we detect. This is very cool because while Stephen was describing one phenomena I saw the explanation of another, how VP's can become real particles and that might be a link to how matter came to be from nothing ie. our Universe. Ok it's aspirin time here my brain hurts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a quick explanation of Hawkings Radiation. Since VP's always come in pairs, one positive(matter) and one negative(antimatter), it's the negative that gets pulled into a Black Hole. When it gets pulled into a Black Hole, it annihilates a particle of matter within, and that is how Black Holes can evaporate. That is also why there is far more matter than antimatter in the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homer, thanks for reminding me about what part of the VP went into the black hole, it's been a while since I read the book and I forgot how that worked. I have a renewed enthusiasm concerning energy/matter creation after giving this reaction, the way you've explained it, more thought.

My main problem has been energy. Where does it come from? I am familiar with the conservation of energy law but that law leaves a void. I do believe that energy has been and is being created. What I mean is--it had to come from somewhere.

With that said I will say that there is and always was energy potential and that's what I've been looking into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

j6p,

Your questions on energy can never be answered with absolute certainty, in my opinion, because the beginning of everything can never be known for sure.

If you believe in the Big Bang as the beginning of all space, time and matter, then only potential energy existed, according the the laws of conservation.

But if you believe that the Big Bang was one of an infinite number of Big Bangs, where the universe expands and collapses for eternity, then kinetic energy would have existed before the most recent Big Bang.

There are other thoeries, obviously, but the question of where energy originated, and in what form, depends on the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be that the great thinkers of today are misreading a dynamic that is happening in front of their eyes, "big bangs" and "big crunches"....quasars and black holes.

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.