The Big Bang & The Big Question, My Moment Of Clarity

right now i know alot of this may not make sense, so feel free to question my notes in a reply and i'll explain fully,

Right this all came about as i was sitting on my sofa watching the television, nothing in particular was on so i was left sitting there thinking,

Then all of a sudden i had a moment of clarity, and began thinking about the big bang & 'time travel' (time travel i have always believed to be impossible by the way). So there i am sitting there thinking, and i start to jott things down on my notepad,

This is a type-up of what i jotted down as it popped into mind, starting with me thinking about the 'big' question of "what was before the big bang" and how people try to understand what was there before the big bang happened

"The period before the big bang could not of existed before the big bang,
this is because there really was nothingness before the big bang

The period before the big bang was only created at exactly the same time the big bang was,
As the big bang WAS the START of everything, It means that there cannot of been anything before the start itself,

The 'nothingness' before the big bang was created at exactly the same point as the big bang
created our universe,

due to time being created (this is how & why there CAN be possible alternative universes) that instantly then created a period BEFORE the big bang,

As before time itself was created, there was just a stillness, (stillness is non-movement, non-force)"

This is all theory, however from thinking about time, i then moved onto the alternative universes part

time is disruptive of the stillness, like ripples in a pond,
each new ripple would then be an 'alternate universe',

so once the big bang happened and time was created, the period before the big bang was then also created and is the start of the first ripple of time,
Meaning that something really can and probably did come from nothing

Bare with me on this, i attempted to draw a diagram of how i had this all pictured in my head too,


Stage One, 'The Nothingness'


Stage Two 'The Big Bang Happens'


Stage Three 'The Theory'

the image above shows my visualization of how the big bang ITSELF creates the period in time before the big bang ITSELF happened,
1) Is then the time before the big bang
2) Is the big bang happening

I'll Explain again, The big bang created the universe and TIME itself, therefore there cannot of been a period in time before the big bang,
So by the big bang happening, we then are given a whole new 'thing' in the new (yet old) time before the big bang itself,


And when i went on to mumble about time rippling, this is how i came to understand it in my mind,




and yes i am aware, very crude drawings, they were much better on paper,
i really do dislike ms paint

Well HMMM...

Is your theory that time itself did not exist before the big bang? That the moment the bang happened, we had a concept of existence and time? Like your second diagram of 1 to 2 - that is existence and the nothingness is gone forever after that?

Suppose the Big Bang was something that happens more than once. Suppose it happens over and over for infinity, creating infinite universes. That would be like God breathing... inhale, nothingness, exhale, big bang. The Hindus called that concept Brahman... just another word for the being that creates all universes over and over.

Good philosophical ground to be on.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by NewWorldOver]

yes yes yes,
there was no time before the big bang,
so when it happened it created a time before it,

my points 1 & 2 are explained like this,
part 1) the time before big bang, part 2) any point after the start of time
so in effect part 1) Past, part 2) Every potential second after,

however before the big bang happened there was nothing, just stillness in nothingness, but the big bang happening created a 'time before' aswell as the big bang itself

**Edit**

and about the universe repeating, i also have long believed that there is a super massive black hole at the 'creation point' which causes 'the big bang' to happen and repeat, have stood by this theory for many years,

but my theory above attends to the very FIRST big bang

[edit on 13/3/2008 by AmmonSeth]

When I try to imagine and picture in my mind ... the "whole" of existence collapsing into a single point, without the details and just the edges closing in.

Once the imagined "existence" gets small enough that it doesn't take up all of my vision ... I can't help but see the area outside of it.

also... is time a creation? isn't it just the knowledge ... or even the physical fact ... that things move and are then, no longer where the once were?

hmmmm... I can not imagine time as a material thing....

and I am not getting ... or able to imagine the creation of time...... hmmmm....

if it WAS created... time would have to come first, right? then space and then matter..... or.... ahhhh

[edit on 13-3-2008 by WishI]

If there was nothingness before the big bang then how can something be made from nothing? That is like saying us and our societies came from no where. There had to be something in order to create the particles, atoms and molecules to create the big bang or else we should not even exist.

The Big Bang theory states that all matter we know now was compressed into a small single area. (so hot and compressed that the first second after the big bang itself, light could form solid objects) The area around it was just void of any known matter, but it still existed. Since space and time are related and space did existed (although under different situation than now), time existed as well. I think it is safe to say that time was at a standstill (special relativity speaking) because of gravity.

You could say that time started "flowing" with the big bang, but it was always there just not moving (special relativity speaking).

With special relativity, the concept of time is backwards than what you would expect. The past does not exist until the present creates it. With that in mind, and the big bang being in the past, time must exist for it because the present dictates that it does.

reply to post by AmmonSeth


You're applying 3 dimensional thinking to a universe that is 10 or 26 dimensional (according to String Theory).

'The universe is stranger than we can imagine.'

The OP has an interesting theory. I enjoyed following your thought process about this. And your thinking IS the way that cosmologists come up with ways to mathematically test their new theories.

One theoretical physicist (Michio Kaku), who( IMO), is the best at describing what the current theories about the universe and its creation are, answered when asked: “ If parallel universes exist, can they collide?”. This question may not at first seem to have anything to do with the question of the big bang. Or what could have been before it. But when looking at this question, a surprise answer about the cause of the big bang revealed itself.
(M-theory) - in my opinion, the best we’ve got right now.

Source

If parallel universes exist, can they collide?
Matthew
England
Michio: "Probably. The latest cosmological data comes from the WMAP satellite currently orbiting the earth. The data is consistent with “inflation,” i.e. the idea that the universe began in a super turbo-charged expansion at the instant of the big bang. However, inflation is also a quantum theory, i.e. there is a finite probability that if inflation happened once, it can happen again, and again. In fact, big bangs may be happening all the time, even as you read this sentence. There may be a continual creation of universes.
In other words, our universe is probably a bubble of some sort which is expanding. But inflation theory seems to indicate that we may not be the only bubble/universe. Think of a bubble bath, in which there are innumerable soap bubbles floating, sometimes colliding, sometimes breaking in half, sometimes popping in and out of existence. This is the “multiverse” picture which seems to be emerging from inflation theory.
Inflation theory, however, cannot explain the dynamics of these bubble/universes. Inflation simply states that such a turbo-charged expansion took place, but inflation does not explain why inflation took place in the first place, or what drives it. For that, we need a higher theory, such as string theory (or its latest version, M-theory, where M stands for membrane).
In M-theory, there are innumerable membranes floating in a much larger arena (11 dimensional hyperspace). We live on the skin of one such bubble which lives in 3 dimensional space. However, there may be other “branes” floating in 11 dimensional hyperspace. The physicists at Princeton calculated what would happen if two such branes collided. Much to their surprise, they found that the two branes would merge and create a shock wave. By analyzing this shock wave, they found that it resembled the big bang itself. In fact, they were led to believe that this WAS the big bang. This theory is now called the Big Splat theory, and is one of the serious candidates for the underlying big bang theory."

WMPA satellite :
WMPA this is cool
THE OLDEST LIGHT IN THE UNIVERSE


[edit on 13-3-2008 by Zeptepi]


Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 13-3-2008 by Jbird]

There is a theory that seems to work well. It replaces the Big Bang theory and explains the increased expansion of the known universe.

Ekpyrotic Universe theory. It can be tricky reading. But for those who love physics, it is good to read.

Your mind can not concieve an end to space therefore it is infinite. If you think there is only one universe try again. There are an infinite number of universes because the Infinite rule is in effect. What you experience alone is your universe. Everyone is in there own universe. I did not exist in the ancient egyptians universe, but I exist now.

reply to post by Brain2100cc


Depending which theory you are going by. Different theories operate under different rules. A multiverse was popular, but now it is leaning back to just the one universe.

Good job pointing this out my friend Shadow-Lord, Yes I believe this theory opened the door for the “Big Splat theory". Now we are getting somewhere!

Princeton-physics
Ekpyrotic Universe

And disagreement:

source

Another disagreement from DEC 21, 2007

Universe may have been created with Big Splat
“One new discussion that has arisen from their studies, which was stated in the ScienceNOW Daily News article “No Dice for Slow Roll?” (December 21, 2007), states, “Although the findings don't rule out traditional inflation theories, they do open the door for other theories about how the universe began, including the idea that the universe began with a splat rather than a bang.”

Source

edit to add: DEC 21, 2007

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Zeptepi]


Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 13-3-2008 by Jbird]

I believe standard cosmology is in agreement with the OP thus far: Time and space did not exist before the Big Bang.

You protest, 'But how can something come out of nothing? There must have been something there before!' But there was no before. Therefore there wasn't any something.

The Big Bang was the Beginning.

reply to post by Astyanax


It depends on you argue the fact. The big bang theory does say that all space/time started at that point. It also says that a universe existed before the big bang happened. It also says that all space/time was contained in 1 area, but there is no such thing as empty space, exotic particles are always popping in and out from somewhere. Time passes because an event happened, and physics wants a cause and effect, so something before the event triggered it, which requires time. And you can probably argue that time did not move before the big bang.

That is just a small list of problems with the big bang theory, it tries to cover to much and contradicts itself. Basically our math cannot deal with something at that point because you end up dividing by 0. We do have a math and theory to deal with this, but it's not 100% working either. This moment is where science, religion, and philosophy meet.

Standard cosmology is in agreement that time and space did not exist as we know it before the big bang. Unfortunately at the same time, standard cosmology is also in disagreement. It just depends on what part/model of the theory your using. It has been modified over the last 50 plus years, so I guess it also depends what year of the theory you are using too. (Dark matter for example)

Matter can be created spontaneously out of 'empty' space...Objects can be in many places at the same time... It's little things like that, that throw wrenches at us. But, with those concepts it is possible that nothing triggered the big bang, it just appeared. Poof. But we currently have no science that reliably works when the universe was less than a second old. So what we consider time now, could have been something completely different.

To me, the big bang is simply "which came first the chicken or the egg" on a much larger scale. Since we are still working with unproven theories its all guesswork, and great a great debate subject.

Originally posted by Equinox99
If there was nothingness before the big bang then how can something be made from nothing? That is like saying us and our societies came from no where. There had to be something in order to create the particles, atoms and molecules to create the big bang or else we should not even exist.

No matter how everything was created...something came from nothing at some point.

Technically speaking , his theory conforms to the “standard cosmology”(of old) however, a much newer and more mathematically correct version that is gaining strength as the new “standard cosmology” has no proclivity for the beginning of time. It is as radical to “standard cosmology” as the earth-centric version of the universe was back when Galileo presented the helio-centric “standard cosmology” (of old).
Hopefully, this time nobody will be put under house arrest. I personally see this “new standard of cosmology” as the best yet at describing reality.

May I suggest that you take a few moments to look over the links that I have provided to see what this “new standard of cosmology” is, and see what it means.

Before the Big Bang
From:Discover magizine

Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have a radical idea that could wipe away these mysteries. They theorize that the cosmos was never compacted into a single point and did not spring forth in a violent instant. Instead, the universe as we know it is a small cross section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in dimensions we cannot perceive. What we think of as the Big Bang, they contend, was the result of a collision between our three-dimensional world and another three-dimensional world less than the width of a proton away from ours—right next to us, and yet displaced in a way that renders it invisible. Moreover, they say the Big Bang is just the latest in a cycle of cosmic collisions stretching infinitely into the past and into the future. Each collision creates the universe anew. The 13.7-billion-year history of our cosmos is just a moment in this endless expanse of time.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Zeptepi]

Originally posted by Astyanax
I believe standard cosmology is in agreement with the OP thus far: Time and space did not exist before the Big Bang.

You protest, 'But how can something come out of nothing? There must have been something there before!' But there was no before. Therefore there wasn't any something.

The Big Bang was the Beginning.

Thats exactly how i was looking to word it
'There was no 'before' therefore there was no 'something'
thank you astyanax, youve saved my brain from intense beating itself up lol

and

Originally posted by Xeven

No matter how everything was created...something came from nothing at some point.

This is what i have been trying to work out,
but the best way i can describe what i have come up with is
'The big bang created the time before itself'

Let me try and rack my brain to explain it with an analogy,

okay right, in life you measure time in seconds as a standard,
Each second doesnt exist until you have lived through that second,
sure you KNOW there will be a next second, but, it doesnt exist until
you are either in it or it has passed,

Now apply that to the big bang,
Big bang created time itself,
so therefore 'before' the big bang never existed,
until the big bang happened so that a second could pass to solidify a time before,

Awesome discussion and great Theory

Personally, I wonder why people say "something" had to trigger the big bang, because something cannot be made from nothing.

However if something had to create/trigger the big bang, then what created this something? Because something cannot be made from nothing? Its an endless loop

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Tunedbeats]

Eh, I was gonna sit this out but everyone keeps bringing up the same question.

'How can something come from nothing.'

The universe didn't come from nothing necessarily. It came from pure potential and pure energy, which is more energy than we can fathom. This energy was also 'compressed' into a particle 100,000,000 times smaller than an atom... that is also incomprehensible to us.

None the less, that little seed of potential and infinite energy did exist, but not in this dimension and not in any way we can conceive in this dimension. Sort of like rizlas point... we have to keep in mind that other dimensions are at work here. The physical universe we know is probably the product of unseen dimensions giving birth to this one.

AmmonSeth

Let me say that I am glad that you are thinking about cosmology.
And I hope that when you posted this, you hoped some folks with maybe
A little more than just a passing interest in it might respond. In fact,
I hope that because you posted “Your theory” here, on ATS, a conspiracy
Theory forum, you would expect it.

A forum that insists on denying ignorance, and upholds truth and facts to the utmost. And that you are fully prepared to defend it.

That being said, I promise that I will not post a two line quip about something from nothing, without facts or at least a well vetted hypothesis.

Also, none of that icky math stuff (unless you want to). Just don’t hold me to my bad spelling, grammar and punctuation. This indeed is a scholarly subject, as I have attempted to do in my previous posts here, I will try to keep it as such.

No hyperbolae here.
This can be a very fun and educational thread for everyone. I have already learned how to correctly quote an external source properly.( thanks Jbird)


1.Your theory is not unique. It is a version of the big bang theory. One that
Has some semblance of inflationary theory. And is wrong.
“standard cosmology” (of old).

2.Time is not separate from space this has been vetted since 1915(special relativity) And in any version of the big bang theory, mathematically cannot be. This is
Very basic for you to understand so that you can present yourself in the context of your theory. Please use your library card and get a good book about this(the big bang theory) if you want to be taken seriously about it.

3.In any version of the big bang (yours included) you cannot create space/time before the singularity, Or in other words, before the big bang. By magic, math, wishful thinking, or by hyperbolae, which you have done here. It has been tried, even by developing new math to try to describe it. (nasty problem dividing by zero you see)It has been calculated to within 10 to the minus 35th of a second from the singularity of the big bang. It is THE major stumbling block in the whole of your theory.

4.The ripples in space/time do not cause anything, But are caused BY gravity.

The explanations of why I think your theory is wrong, can be found by careful reading of the links I have provided earlier in this thread.

Now I will expect your explanation of how you suppose your theory to be correct. Oh and “because I said so” , wont cut it here at ATS I believe.