It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What Happened Before The Big Bang?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 06:10 AM
I found quite an interesting artical on Science Daily.

New discoveries have been made about another universe whose collapse appears to have given birth to the one we live in today. They will be announced in the early on-line edition of the journal Nature Physics on 1 July 2007 and will be published in the August 2007 issue of the journal's print edition. "My paper introduces a new mathematical model that we can use to derive new details about the properties of a quantum state as it travels through the Big Bounce, which replaces the classical idea of a Big Bang as the beginning of our universe," said Martin Bojowald, assistant professor of physics at Penn State. Bojowald's research also suggests that, although it is possible to learn about many properties of the earlier universe, we always will be uncertain about some of these properties because his calculations reveal a "cosmic forgetfulness" that results from the extreme quantum forces during the Big Bounce.

The idea that the universe erupted with a Big Bang explosion has been a big barrier in scientific attempts to understand the origin of our expanding universe, although the Big Bang long has been considered by physicists to be the best model. As described by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the origin of the Big Bang is a mathematically nonsensical state -- a "singularity" of zero volume that nevertheless contained infinite density and infinitely large energy.

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:08 AM
Nice...but this just shift the 'mystery' of origin on another scale - but does NOT answer what was in the 'beginning"!

What give rise to multiverse than?

I think we are totally in dark on these question!

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:48 AM
I have always wondered this myself. If we assume that the universe was created by natural causes and not a GRAND CREATOR then there had to be a "before", correct?

How did this happen? Where was the material at? What triggered the big bang? If the big bang was triggered, then something HAD to be there BEFORE to trigger it, and there had to be material there to be used in the creation process of the universe, correct?

This is giving me as big of a headache as the time travel paradox thread.


posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:52 AM
I would assume that before the Big Bang, there would be the burning of a really big fuse

Really, I don't necessarily buy into the Big Bang theory. I believe that the universe simply always was and always will be. There are frequently small bangs, the collapse and explosion of stars and perhaps galaxies, but I don't think it's the whole universe. I could be wrong, but so could they.

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:53 AM
I'm just gonna throw this out there and see what people think:

Basically, if there was a volume, which means no length, width, height, and TIME (assuming TIME actually is a dimension). So theoretically, there doesn't have to be anything before the singularity, because time had not yet been created.

This really just popped in my head right now, so if anyone would like to elaborate, or disprove it, by all means, go for it. Like I said, I'm just kinda throwing it out there....

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by logicize
I believe that the universe simply always was and always will be.

I have a question for you then, just because I am curious about your mode of thought so I figured I would ask so I can understand a bit better.

If it has always been andwill always be, where do you feel it came from? Everything that we know and understand as humans has a starting - mid - end point and I have always assumed the universewould be no exception.

Your thought process is - intriguing. Help me understand your thoughts a bit better.


posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:02 AM
I think it is one of those things that is very difficult for the human mind to grasp. It's similar to the never ending space problem. I think it is one of the reasons scientist like the big bang answer, because it gives a starting point, something the mind can grasp. That doesn't make it correct though. Just as space never ends, neither will the universe. And just as there is no starting point in space there is no starting point in time. Of course its just the way I think of it and I may be wrong.

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:07 AM
You very well be right. I guess if there were no starting point in time there would be no way the human mind in current configuration could complete the much needed "thought loop" of start-middle-end.

Interesting discussion we have here.


posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:26 AM
What Happened Before The Big Bang?

My guess is there was some foreplay involved.

Seriously, I think the bounce may be one possibility, but it may be impossible to ever know. It is certainly hard to grasp when we are used to dealing with mass that always decays into smaller particles and gives off energy. How do you get all the particles and energy to recombine in order to start the process over again?

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 07:54 AM
I think consciousness creates the universe (or at least what we perceive) I mean has far as you know nothing existed before you were born because you did not observe it and when you die will the universe still exist?

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 08:26 AM

Originally posted by purplemonkey
I think consciousness creates the universe (or at least what we perceive) I mean has far as you know nothing existed before you were born because you did not observe it and when you die will the universe still exist?

And what give rise to 'consciousness'? We can go on , and on, in infinite regress!

Before you, as observer come along - universe existed...

Same goes to answer: 'universe always existed'- coz you do NOT explain existence of universe at all!

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 09:32 AM
For me, the idea of 'colliding 'branes' is a very good answer.

Prior to that, I'm trying to imagine a little 'ball' of matter and energy starting the 'Universe'.

But if you consider that the 'tiny point' doesn't exist and only comes into existence when the two branes touch, then that solves the 'what was it just before it exploded'.

IOW the 'tiny starting dot' is a misinterpretation of what is happening.

The next thing to remember is that it's not possible for something 'within' a system to talk about an element that is 'outside' that system.

So knowing, understanding, picturing how the 'multiverse' is arranged, or knowing anything solid about 'branes' may well be impossible. It's outside our system, so we can't describe it or understand it.

It's the same thing for 2-Dimensional beings trying to understand the 'Sun' for instance. For them everything is uniformly light or dark and they can't perceive there's a big 3-D sphere out in 'space'. For them those words have no meaning.

Same thing with us trying to -really- understand the multiverse and how things 'run' "out there".

I'm not saying give up! I'm just cautioning that we may not have words for the things that are going on, iow, the 'ultimate' answer; at least not right now.

Good discussion!

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:41 AM
Just a quick follow up.

It might not be clear what I mean by 'outside our system'.

If you look at the key arguments for the classic paradox/conundrum:

Is there Free Will?

It's a corollary derived from 'Newcomb's Paradox'

...showing that you can't ask a fundamental question about the paradigm or system in which you operate because to do so requires you to be 'outside' that system and by definition, you can't do that.

So there will never really be a satisfying answer to question 'is there Free Will', because you tend to invalidate that by making some kind of choice. (some people have claimed to solve it, but no consensus)

Likewise, to ask a question 'what came before...', in this case, the Singularity, or Brane touch or Big Bang, would yield a nonsensical answer.

God would say. 'Well (5 or 5,000,000 incomprehensible words later) ... and "Voilà".'

IOW, He'd likely use words and concepts for which you have no reference and could not comprehend.

Now, I'm not saying there isn't an 'indirect' method of doing this. For instance if someone could compute the math of the collapse of the Universe back through the singularity, or define the physics of a Black Hole, then they could make some pretty good indirect assumptions about the 'what came before' question.

But it might still be a 'gotcha', because the answer, like many physics and math proofs -involves- advanced math and for most of us that's equally incomprehensible.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by Badge01]

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by Renshin

Big bang is a dead theory, so the question is useless.

Reality is no one knows what started everything and more importantly why there has to be something rather than nothing. Rest is mere speculations.

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 08:10 PM
The big bang marks the start of time, therefore, there is no "before," the big bang.

If this doesn't make sense, let me know. I'll try to elaborate.

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:15 PM
I think most of us have found ourselves easily overwhelmed when presented with the paradox of our origin. The Big Bang has been the most widely accepted way of explaining away the big questions asked by humanity. It has a starting point, we exist in the meantime, and all we have to do is speculate as to the end.

I guess the problem is that we are trying to explain something we don't understand. We don't know if there was a beginning to the universe, or if there will be an end. If the universe conforms to our same laws, then it must! But why must our universe follow our same rules? We are essentially an insignificant part of the universe, and thus it is pretty arrogant to assume we have much in common with it at all.

I don't think it's as much about the origin of the universe as it is about the origins of reality. I think consciousness has a great deal more to do with it all than we know at this point. Given the fact that our consciousness has demonstrated the ability to interact with physical reality, is it safe to assume that consciousness may play an even larger, more ultimate or fundamental role?

The key to understanding the universe is to understand existence. Not to understand human existence, but existence in general. This can be achieved via meditation. Remove your senses from the equation, because they are tools of the physical reality and have NO place in describing something beyond that physical reality.

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:49 PM
reply to post by The Cyfre

Cool. Um, tell me one thing that has been understood or explained about the Universe by your meditations?

We know this idea to be valid, because, after all, Einstein proposed his theories largely on the basis of thought experiments.

And, we all know that Stephen Hawking isn't running around building orreries and blowing up atoms by hand.

What I wonder is if you are talking about 'woo-hoo' type meditation, such as TM, or Buddhist chanting, or do you mean expanding the human mind?

If it's the latter then maybe it would be of interest to catch up on the progress physics has made since the Bang was in vogue. You know like about 1985?

(just teasing)

posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 11:51 AM
I know and accept that 'universe is all that is', so the question like 'before' and 'outside' have no meaning regarding existing universe...but sure we here step outside of physics into metaphysics...on question of what bring into existence that point of singularity...not to mention the unimaginable 'why" theories here, just wild guesses...

Love the idea of QM of some kind of quantum substratum (vacuum) being unstable and thus giving rise to universes....but that substratum is also something, so what precedes head hurts...

Meditation!? Is the consciousness everywhere and nowhere and can penetrate beyond? Can we intuitively sense the answers? Is in the 'gnothi seauton' carved over the temple of Apollo at Delphi, the way to solve this 'mystery'? Is the answer already here in ourselves? 'As above- so below"!? Is macrocosm mirrored in manifoldness of universe and the ultimate reality reflected through us? Or are we like 'flat landers''s trying to comprehend 3D?

But it is nice excanging our touhgts...

posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 12:09 PM
Well, as I understand it, one of the newest, most accepted theories for the Big Bang is two realities colliding, and the Big Bang being the results of the impact. This would of course mean that there was nothing before the Big Bang except alternate dimensions/realities coexisting.

posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by blue bird

The part about quantum foam giving rise to new Universes bears some additional explanation.

Any Universes that are created are very small and are extinguished almost immediately. What's neat is that our Universe is -extremely- dynamic at both limits, the quantum and the macro-cosmic. Truly mind boggling.

History Channel is broadcasting the final episode of their 'Universe' series on Tuesday and it's supposedly on this very topic.

I hope everyone will tune in to see it. (it will be repeated several times; check local listings).

[edit on 1-9-2007 by Badge01]

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in