-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Okay but if the universe is expanding, what the hell happened before the Big Bang?
- Thread starter Zen
- Start date
We do have some ideas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr6nNvw55C4
Actually my bad, I was thinking of another concept, but I will leave this link here as it is a good video. The answer is, we just don't know.
Actually my bad, I was thinking of another concept, but I will leave this link here as it is a good video. The answer is, we just don't know.
Last edited:
It's not just the nothingness before the big bang that gets me, it's why there was anything at all. If there was nothing before the big bang, just a void of nothingness, where did the first particles come from? Surely they must have arisen or been formed by something?
There wasn't even a void.
But yes, it's difficult to explain how we go from nothing to something.
The Big Bang was just previous universe expanding so much that it wrapped around and the edges smashed into other, through each other, and then started to loop back around.
Eventually, everything will just loop back.
Eventually, everything will just loop back.
Yeah, there is/was no before as we conceptualize it, as time as we understand it doesn't/didn't exist. So, shit if I know, and Thanos and the infinity stones is as good an answer as any other theory.
AFAIK, Hawking radiation (the source of the information paradox) is specific to black hole event horizons, but doesn't come into play for cosmic event horizon.
The big bang is not a creation event, it's an expansion event. It took place in the earliest moments of time, so asking what was "before" it is a question that is not actually coherent, despite seeming perfectly logical to people who are accustomed to thinking of time as a line that runs infinitely in both forward and backwards directions. This also implies that asking questions like "but what caused the big bang" is only possible to answer in ways that are guaranteed to not truly satisfy the person asking the question.
Someone asking "but what caused the big bang?" doesn't generally want to know about the workings of the mechanisms of the expansion of the unvierse, they're really just trying to ask a very similar question again - they want to imagine that if at T = 0, the expansion of the universe began to occur, what was happening at T = -1, and who or what was responsible for transitioning from the state of T = -1 to T = 0? But again, this question is fruitless, because there is no such thing as T = -1 under this line of thinking. If there is no preceding state with a different set of circumstances, then there is no such thing as "causation".
The real philosophical question you are left with is not what happened before the big bang, it's why was does something exist rather than nothing existing? There are no definitive answers to that.
The temptation to use god as a plug-in answer to all of the above questions is not actually beneficial for anything except allowing some people to feel comfortable shutting down the line of inquiry. God in this instance is just a thought-stopper. Instead of "Why does something exist rather than nothing existing?" you are left with "Why does god exist, rather than not existing?". Similarly, "What came before the big bang?" is replaced by "What came before god?", and "What caused the big bang?" is replaced by "What caused god?" Thusly, if god is "logically necessary", then so could one argue that the universe is; if god always existed and there was no time before god when god did not exist, so too can this be said of the universe with equal validity; if god is uncaused, then why cannot the universe be uncaused?
Someone asking "but what caused the big bang?" doesn't generally want to know about the workings of the mechanisms of the expansion of the unvierse, they're really just trying to ask a very similar question again - they want to imagine that if at T = 0, the expansion of the universe began to occur, what was happening at T = -1, and who or what was responsible for transitioning from the state of T = -1 to T = 0? But again, this question is fruitless, because there is no such thing as T = -1 under this line of thinking. If there is no preceding state with a different set of circumstances, then there is no such thing as "causation".
The real philosophical question you are left with is not what happened before the big bang, it's why was does something exist rather than nothing existing? There are no definitive answers to that.
The temptation to use god as a plug-in answer to all of the above questions is not actually beneficial for anything except allowing some people to feel comfortable shutting down the line of inquiry. God in this instance is just a thought-stopper. Instead of "Why does something exist rather than nothing existing?" you are left with "Why does god exist, rather than not existing?". Similarly, "What came before the big bang?" is replaced by "What came before god?", and "What caused the big bang?" is replaced by "What caused god?" Thusly, if god is "logically necessary", then so could one argue that the universe is; if god always existed and there was no time before god when god did not exist, so too can this be said of the universe with equal validity; if god is uncaused, then why cannot the universe be uncaused?
PBS Space Time has a video discussing exactly that:
Can recommend the whole channel. Excellent advanced physics videos.
If you want more, I recommend the whole playlist:
www.youtube.com
Can recommend the whole channel. Excellent advanced physics videos.
If you want more, I recommend the whole playlist:
Why the Big Bang Definitely Happened | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
How physics lets us rewind time to the beginning of the universe.Get your own Space Time t-shirt at http://bit.ly/1QlzoBiTweet at us! @pbsspacetimeFacebook: ...
www.youtube.com
I'm fairly sure that the string theory is currently looked down upon. It certainly has been hyped up a few decades ago, but as I understand it's more of a wishful thinking than any sort of useful theory. The theory is sound (if fairly loose), but we currently have no way to falsify it so it is impossible to debunk. Neither have we tested positively for any particular aspect of it. It just is, but it's not particularly useful in understanding our world since there's no way for us to prove it either way.
Great post. I always find it funny how to an extent someone like Augustine with his description of time and space has all the conceptual tools to describe existence, and how concepts like time can generally operate within the boundaries of said existence.
Honestly, I tend to think of it in terms of science's business is describing the physical realm, and right now, given the state of our knowledge, any question about what happens beyond the spacetime boundaries of the universe is essentially metaphysical. It can even be unintentionally fallacious, because it can lead to an overly simplistic conclusion that science doesn't have more answers to bring than religion.
This is the true mindfuck and why the Big Bang theory, like God/creationism, is so deeply unsatisfying. Both take existence for granted (whether of the beginning state of the universe or of its creator/deity) despite our deep seated intuition that it shouldn't be.
PBS Space Time has a video discussing exactly that:
Can recommend the whole channel. Excellent advanced physics videos.
If you want more, I recommend the whole playlist:
Why the Big Bang Definitely Happened | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
How physics lets us rewind time to the beginning of the universe.Get your own Space Time t-shirt at http://bit.ly/1QlzoBiTweet at us! @pbsspacetimeFacebook: ...
This channel is my go to when I want to have some comfy sleep in my couch.
Help me Stepbrother! I'm stuck in a timeloop. You have to Big Bang me!
the "why" question is indeed a trip, there can never be a satisfying answer. we just aren't equipped to deal with that.
it's like an ant trying to figure out quantum electrodynamics.
I think there's different schools of thought on the matter but what if things like logic and mathematics where created at he Big Bang, the way we think and describe the universe. If so how would you even describe the "before" if there was such a thing? Maybe it wasn't nothing but also not something, at least how we would think of something. What it was maybe something that came after the Big Bang just can't accurately describe of comprehend it.
Semi serious answer: the universe is infinite and in some way incorporates all mathematical structures. Some deeper level of physics can cause big bangs to happen.
What physicists would say on the record: it's not that we have no clue, but that the laws of physics that we know don't make sense when we run them back far enough. There are current plausible theories but the jury's out.
What physicists would say on the record: it's not that we have no clue, but that the laws of physics that we know don't make sense when we run them back far enough. There are current plausible theories but the jury's out.
Since the law of gravity states that all matter is exerting force upon all other matter at all times (no matter how infintesimal it may be), it means that the expansion of the universe isn't infinite, but rather will very, VERY slowly crawl to a stop. At this point, all matter will begin accelerating back towards the location of the big bang, due to that being the aggregate relative location of all matter in terms of gravitational pull. Due to how the matter spread by the Big Bang is mostly clustered at the edge of what would be a sphere centered on the "center of the universe", matter would slowly trickle in at first, then larger and denser clusters would arrive more and more frequently until most of the matter is present.
The first pieces of matter to reach this point will collide and bounce off, eventually coming to a stop at the center of the universe, which will then continue to be piled upon by constantly arriving matter. This ball of matter will continue to increase in mass and density due to arriving matter, as it will mostly remain the same size as every piece of matter newly arriving will arrive at an appreciable amount of the speed of light due to constant acceleration on the return trip, thus exerting a constant, massive force on this central ball of matter. Eventually, when the majority of the universe's matter has finished arriving and the incoming force from returning matter passes its apex, the external pressure won't be enough to maintain the density of the ball of matter, which will then violently explode, ejecting all the returned matter out at incredible speeds. And thus, the universe is cyclical.
There isn't a question of when the universe "began" insomuch that it simply always existed.
The first pieces of matter to reach this point will collide and bounce off, eventually coming to a stop at the center of the universe, which will then continue to be piled upon by constantly arriving matter. This ball of matter will continue to increase in mass and density due to arriving matter, as it will mostly remain the same size as every piece of matter newly arriving will arrive at an appreciable amount of the speed of light due to constant acceleration on the return trip, thus exerting a constant, massive force on this central ball of matter. Eventually, when the majority of the universe's matter has finished arriving and the incoming force from returning matter passes its apex, the external pressure won't be enough to maintain the density of the ball of matter, which will then violently explode, ejecting all the returned matter out at incredible speeds. And thus, the universe is cyclical.
There isn't a question of when the universe "began" insomuch that it simply always existed.
Last edited:
As has been noted, this view of the universe is outdated. The universe is expanding fast enough that it will never collapse back upon itself. Just because gravitation is universal and long range does not mean it is sufficient to draw objects together if the velocity they are separating is large enough.
Most of the structures on the large scale of the universe (above the galaxy cluster level really) are not gravitationally bound and will end up dispersing into the distance. The Milky Way galaxy is in the Local Group, which is part of the Virgo Supercluster. But the Virgo Supercluster is not gravitationally bound like the Local Group is, and will eventually be torn apart by the expansion of the universe.
OP
OP
Asking what happened before is the only way that I can relate as an ugly bag of mostly water living on this tiny flying rock. It's all well and good to pick apart the syntax, but the question remains nonetheless. Indeed, it's absolutely mystifying trying to comprehend the idea that even the framework of time as I'm used to thinking about it doesn't apply to the start of existence, if there is one. Even planting the Big Bang at the earliest moments of time implies a beginning.
According to our current knowledge of physics, the end of our universe is heat death, where gravitationally bound objects stay together but everything else gets further apart and colder. It's honestly a lot more pleasant than big crunch or big rip, considering both of those scenarios have a day in which all of existance gets snuffed out instantaneously.
A flat infinite universe doesn't exclude stuff like eternal inflation, cosmologists just haven't found much evidence or come to a solid consensus for hypothesis like those quite yet.
If anything, the past 2 decades of observation have led to believe the opposite is happening, that the expansion is accelerating, which is why a heat death scenario is favored right now. There's obviously no great consensus on the subject, and every possibility is explored, but it's definitely not as simple as stating as an absolute fact that this is what will happen because gravity.
There was nothing before, as you, you as in a sentient biological meat sack made from stuff from the universe, need Space and Time for stuff to happen in and they weren't around before they were. Anything other than that and it's outside our knowledge as we are inside and we can only find out what happens inside. If something happened before it is by definition outside our understanding and we do not have the maths or physics to puzzle it out as our maths and physics are made from measuring the inside. It's an Outside Context Problem as far as our maths and physics can tell. I like the notion that we came to be, our universe I mean, from two other universes bumping into each other. When one universe loves another universe very much etc.
When we talk about the universe, we typically talk about the visible universe, which is finite. The question is what is beyond the visible universe. Visible universe itself also either open, closed or flat (visuals here: link) and measures indicate that it is flat, like a bed cloth.
Current theory seems to indicate other universes are beyond our universe, could be other types of universes that aren't like our existence. Since we only detect things with photons, it's also unlikely we can measure these universes using current methods. But there maybe other methodology like larger and larger particle accelerators utilized to find particles that we can't detect now to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. All of that can help us guess at what can be beyond our universe. I agree with the idea and visualize existence as a wavy, entangled mess of all things that are actually connected, rather than discrete particles which our brain comprehends easily.
This is a very good talk, fascinating all the way through: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxghuChsQPo
How did existence come into being? How was everything that has ever and will ever exist just a single point and what triggered the Big Bang?
If existence is a cycle, then it was written by a hack.
If existence is a cycle, then it was written by a hack.
All I know that something has to trigger it in order for the universe to expand and it's been going on Infinitely since then.
It could be that the universe was created from an outburst of a black hole. Who knows
It could be that the universe was created from an outburst of a black hole. Who knows
It took place everywhere. The "point" that it expanded from is the universe. We, and everything, are still inside that point. Every part of the universe is moving away from every other part. There is no point of convergence.
I once saw a scientist say that "the big bang" is a terrible name. It wasn't "big", and it wasn't an explosion. She said it should be called "the everywhere expansion".
Eventually everything contracts into another singularity.
The forces are immense.
A Big Bang happens.
In the far future, another iteration of you will be posting this same thought on a video game message board.
In the distant past, another iteration of you posted this same thought on a video game message board.
It's fun to think about occasionally. I've always thought the universe was like a heart. Constantly pumping blood/life force/energy throughout space, expanding and contracting.
At some point, I'd imagine the universe will give out. Just like a heart. My theory as to why would be something like cancer where black holes are the tumors.
I also wondered what if it's not black holes that are ending galaxies. What if it is simply recycling energy, and on the other side in a different space and time is another galaxy. But that's probably just my sci-fi fanboy mind.
Regardless, all this boils down to the age-old chicken and egg argument. I don't think anyone will ever have an answer, because someone will likely reasonably be able to ask so what came before that or what set that system into motion: cause and effect. What was the cause? Why? Why? Why? It seems endless.
The closest answer I've seen is a perpetual loop of energy that exists outside space where said energy provides the genesis of its own existence. But then you would have to say that energy doesn't adhere to time and always was in a way we probably will never understand. So you will always probably arrive to some frustrating point of non-answer.
At some point, I'd imagine the universe will give out. Just like a heart. My theory as to why would be something like cancer where black holes are the tumors.
I also wondered what if it's not black holes that are ending galaxies. What if it is simply recycling energy, and on the other side in a different space and time is another galaxy. But that's probably just my sci-fi fanboy mind.
Regardless, all this boils down to the age-old chicken and egg argument. I don't think anyone will ever have an answer, because someone will likely reasonably be able to ask so what came before that or what set that system into motion: cause and effect. What was the cause? Why? Why? Why? It seems endless.
The closest answer I've seen is a perpetual loop of energy that exists outside space where said energy provides the genesis of its own existence. But then you would have to say that energy doesn't adhere to time and always was in a way we probably will never understand. So you will always probably arrive to some frustrating point of non-answer.
Velocity wouldn't matter, there would have to be an active force to nullify the effect of gravity or some mechanic which would prevent gravity from acting. Any velocity, no matter how large, is not inherently self sustaining and gravity would slow it over time. The time frame would require so many goddamn zeroes that I don't think we have a word for it yet, but it would still happen.
I'm interested in any links you have for this. Why aren't the structures gravitationally bound? I haven't heard anything about that, and that would require a fundamental rewriting of the law of gravity so it seems like that would be a big deal.
I mean, in terms of the laws of physics that we have "locked down" so to say, that is definitely what would happen. If the expansion is accelerating or there are larger, harder to detect laws of physics also at play that we aren't familiar with yet, then that remains to be seen. Even if those are the case, then knowing the scenario that those other laws would be altering creates a good frame of reference, so I think the example is still very useful.
Velocity does matter. Infinite series can sum to a finite total, and that is what happens in this case. If that finite total is less than the velocity between the two objects, gravity will never overcome it.
Just because the gravitational attraction is forever doesn't mean it's potential to change an objects velocity is infinite!
It does not require a re-writing of the laws of gravity.
You have a fundamental mis-understanding that just because the force of gravity has a potentially limitless range, that means that it's ability to change velocity is infinite, it isn't. If the object is receding at a sufficient velocity, the effect of gravity will diminish rapidly enough that it will never overcome that velocity.
This fact was recognized by Isaac Newton when he formulated his Law of Universal Gravitation. It is an inevitable consequence of his equations. There is an Escape Velocity beyond which an object will never be captured by a gravitationally attracting body. Thus even in mundane situations it is possible to have objects that will never be brought back together by gravity.
Since the expansion of the universe causes an apparent velocity that scales linearly with the distance between objects, and gravity reduces with the square of distance, it becomes inevitable that at very large scales gravities influence will be overwhelmed. The universe is unbelievably immense, and we can (currently) observe far more galaxies than those that are gravitationally bound to our Local Group.
The acceleration of the expansion of the universe has been pretty well established since the 90's.
Thread gave me a panic attack
Edit:I avoid thinking about all of this specifically for that reason, i don't know why I clicked and read :(
Edit:I avoid thinking about all of this specifically for that reason, i don't know why I clicked and read :(
I know avatar quote, but have you watched Cosmos: A Personal Voyage? I was the same as you, could hardly think about it and when I had severe depression I got to the point where I was crying for multiple days straight because of the concept of death and non-existence. In the process of rehabilitaiton I randomly stumbled upon Cosmos and Sagan showed me a way of thinking about it that is beautiful and awe-inspiringly positive instead of nihilistic and crushingly sad. I haven't had a panic attack since - it really was an antidote for me in that respect.
Last edited:
You can look outside your window and contemplate a leaf blowing by, just as much as you can think about a distant star or black hole - which isn't mysterious or scary, they're just other places and entities in the same fabric of reality. None of it is mysterious or hostile.
The fact you can contemplate any of it is all you need. You don't need to worry about why or what's out there. The fact you see it and know of it is positive. Your brain's picture of everything is unique and created only by you.
Everything in your reality exists from the inside out not the outside in.
Why are people beginning with the presumption that there was even "nothing" to begin with? It is impossible for there to be nothing. If there was "nothing", that would be something. Existence is, by necessity, something, and something must necessarily exist because there can be no "nothing" (because, again, that would be something).
The better question to ask is "What instigated the expansion that we call The Big Bang?" However, as causality is an emergent property of spacetime, and the Big Bang is the origination of that spacetime, causation may not be relevant. Keep in mind that an infinite number of events could occur within that "point", under the totalitarian principle in relation to quantum fluctuations, and it would appear instantaneous to an outside observer.
The ultimate answer is, of course, that we may never know, and declaring that you do without showing your work (which should lead to a Nobel Prize, if done correctly) is the height of human arrogance. I know ignorance is uncomfortable, but at least own it and work towards an answer.
The better question to ask is "What instigated the expansion that we call The Big Bang?" However, as causality is an emergent property of spacetime, and the Big Bang is the origination of that spacetime, causation may not be relevant. Keep in mind that an infinite number of events could occur within that "point", under the totalitarian principle in relation to quantum fluctuations, and it would appear instantaneous to an outside observer.
The ultimate answer is, of course, that we may never know, and declaring that you do without showing your work (which should lead to a Nobel Prize, if done correctly) is the height of human arrogance. I know ignorance is uncomfortable, but at least own it and work towards an answer.
My understanding is that the we just don't have the information necessary. We assume the Big Bang happened based on the universe's current state, but we have nothing to tell us what the universe was like prior to rapidly expanding. For instance, it's thought that the four fundamental forces that define our current universe were originally a singular force during the initial expansion. Something could have existed, but we have no idea what, no framework to understand it if we knew, and no way to find out (yet).