PDA

View Full Version : Before the Big Bang



Fraser
2006-May-18, 05:15 AM
SUMMARY: The Big Bang describes how the Universe began as a single point 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since, but it doesn't explain what happened before that. Researchers from Penn State University believe that there should be traces of evidence in our current universe that could used to look back before the Big Bang. According to their research, there was a contracting universe with similar space-time geometry to our expanding universe. The universe collapsed and then "bounced" as the Big Bang.

View full article (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/beyond_big_bang.html)
What do you think about this story? post your comments below.

Josh
2006-May-18, 06:10 AM
Wow. This is some really interesting stuff and gives rise to a lot of questions! Does this mean that we are stuck in some sort of loop or was the bounce a once off? Why did that unicerse start contracting? Is the same in store for us? Presumably, that universe started in a similar big bang so what was before that? And before that?

And in the original release the picture blurb says (emphasis mine)
Our expanding phase of the universe is shown by the right branch which, when reversed backward in time, bounces near the Big Bang to a contracting phase (left branch) and never reaches the Big Bang.
Does this mean the point of the Big Bang is some sort of asymptote? If we never reached the point of the big bang, how was there a big bang in our history?

yuzuha
2006-May-18, 09:24 AM
Well, that would certainly agree with Hindu cyclic cosmology! I always thought it might be something like that. Though I was also fond if the idea that the BB was just one of a series of phase transitions (universe dies the heat death, free-space energy drops so that the universe becomes super-cooled, then a quantum fluctuation triggers a new bang and a new universe freezes out, like dropping an ice crystal into a glass of super-cooled water to form a nucleation point, with the vacuum energy being slightly less than it was in the previous universe)

GOURDHEAD
2006-May-18, 11:57 AM
with the vacuum energy being slightly less than it was in the previous universeWhere could the delta energy have gone?

iantresman
2006-May-18, 04:33 PM
This is a genuine question. Is this science?

It's untestable, and purely speculative. And I can see how any prediction could "survive" a hypothetical singularity.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

antoniseb
2006-May-18, 05:51 PM
It's untestable, and purely speculative. And I can see how any prediction could "survive" a hypothetical singularity.

I wouldn't think it was science. There was an article a few weeks back about the universe being 986 billion years old (i.e. it's been bouncing for a trillion years or more). I don't think that the arguments made there were very testable either. It doesn't conflict with mainstream ideas, and lays some groundwork for some possible future tests and science, but clearly it is talking abut the unknowable as we see it today.

nokton
2006-May-18, 08:01 PM
SUMMARY: The Big Bang describes how the Universe began as a single point 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since, but it doesn't explain what happened before that. Researchers from Penn State University believe that there should be traces of evidence in our current universe that could used to look back before the Big Bang. According to their research, there was a contracting universe with similar space-time geometry to our expanding universe. The universe collapsed and then "bounced" as the Big Bang.

View full article (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/beyond_big_bang.html)
What do you think about this story? post your comments below.
Fraser, brane theory seems at this time, to have more merit.
Perhaps we should conclude at some point, that we have not the wit, as
yet, to understand the questions we ask, let alone find the answer.
But let us never keep from asking.
Nokton.

Hern
2006-May-19, 03:59 AM
How about changing the theory just a little? If you can accept the possibility of a comet striking the Earth, can you accept our universe being created by the collision of two seperate ones?
That would explain the existance of all the "star matter" that is still laced through our own galaxy and possibly through all of the 'dark matter' that currently exists between all the galaxies in our universe.
I am, in no way, highly educated. Just self taught. If you think this theory to be <remove expletive> please state as such (in politically correct terms, of course). If not, let us expand this as far as possible.

01101001
2006-May-19, 04:16 AM
If you can accept the possibility of a comet striking the Earth, can you accept our universe being created by the collision of two seperate ones?
Well, I'm trying, but it's not working. If a universe is everything -- all matter, all space, and all time -- then what does it mean to have a second collection of other stuff, somewhere else?

What is your definition of universe? It must be different from mine.

ToSeek
2006-May-19, 05:45 AM
Well, I'm trying, but it's not working. If a universe is everything -- all matter, all space, and all time -- then what does it mean to have a second collection of other stuff, somewhere else?

What is your definition of universe? It must be different from mine.

If the universe is what we can see, then maybe there's other stuff somewhere we can't see.

RussT
2006-May-19, 08:32 AM
There can't be "just one" of anything in nature!

Mtheory
2006-May-19, 01:40 PM
Well,I find very unlikely that the same phycical laws that prevails in the Universe we see today remain valid "before the big bang". I think that one cannot understand what happened during this very early phase of the Universe without changing the frame to which physics itself applies.I beleive that one valid approach was made by the Bogdanoffs brothers whose 3 variable signature model may represent a good description of the "transition phases" of the early Universe. I was even more suspicious against the "discovery" claimed by the team when A.A. wrote that it was a validation of quantum loop gravity whereas this approach was disqualified by all sorts of problems.

Tim Thompson
2006-May-19, 02:27 PM
This is a genuine question. Is this science? ...

I wouldn't think it was science. ...
I shall respectfully disagree, and maintain that it is science, it is testable, and in fact has already been successfully tested.

It is a common thing to see the concept of testability in science misunderstood, and I think that is what's happening here. It makes no more sense to demand that the "bang" of big bang be recreated in a test, than it does to demand that an entire star be recreated in a test. We do not question that stellar astrophysics is science, because we can test hypotheses by looking for observed consequences in the stars we have in nature. Well, we test cosmological hypotheses in the sme way, by looking for observed consequences in the universe that we have in nature.

In this case, the hypothesis is a cyclical universe cosmology as proposed by Paul Steinhardt (http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/) and others (i.e., Khoury, et al., (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001PhRvD..64l3522K&amp;db_key=AST&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4366fa465120536) 2001; Khoury, et al., (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2002PhRvD..65h6007K&amp;db_key=AST&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4366fa465120536) 2002; Steinhardt & Turok (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2002Sci...296.1436S&amp;db_key=AST&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4366fa465120536), 2002; Steinhardt & Turok (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005NewAR..49...43S&amp;db_key=AST&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4366fa465120536), 2005; Steinhardt & Turok (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605173), 2006, and many more; this last paper is the one that generated the UT story). This hypothesis, like any other, is tested by deriving observable consequences from its basic theory, and then looking to see how the observed universe compares. The observable consequence is a small but positive cosmological constant. Observation of the universe reveals that it has a small but positive cosmological constant. Since the observation agrees with prediction, we have consistency, and the hypothesis has passed a scientific test.

That's the way science works. It's all about the method, not the result. It does not prove that the theory is true, but then science does not properly claim to do that anyway. All we really do with science is prove consistency, not truth. Subjectively, after we have seen sufficient successful tests for consistency, we accept an hypothesis as a valid theory, but there is no objective standard for this transition from hypothesis to theory. That's why scientists often argue about it.

So, yes, it is science. An hypothesis was proposed. A predicted consequence of the hypothesis was derived. An observational test was conducted, which had the ability to distinguish between consistency & inconsistency. That observational test produced a definitive result, in this case indicating consistency. Science has been satisfied.

Edited to add:
I should read more carefully. The UT story was not generated by the latest Steinhardt & Turok paper, but rather by this one: Quantum Nature of the Big Bang (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2006PhRvL..96n1301A&amp;db_key=AST&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4366fa465114150); Ashtekar, Powlowski & Singh; Physical Review Letters 96(14): 141301, April 2006. It is actually very different from the cyclic universe of Steinhardt, et al., but comes to a similar conclusion. The cyclic universe cosmology is based on a colliding branes scenario. But Ashtekar, et al., use loop quantum gravity and geometry at the Plack scale, to literally eliminate the singularity. In either case, the singularity is revealed to be what we should have expected it to be, namely an artifact of the mathematics of a theory, and not a fact of physical reality.

nokton
2006-May-19, 09:35 PM
Well, I'm trying, but it's not working. If a universe is everything -- all matter, all space, and all time -- then what does it mean to have a second collection of other stuff, somewhere else?

What is your definition of universe? It must be different from mine.
Non question, Hern has a point, who is to say your definition of the universe
is valid? More than anyone elses? If you are what you say, tell me, do
you understand Alberts Time Frames? If you do, then you understand
the current paradox relative to the event horizon of a black hole.
Your thoughts and ideas welcome, but Hern is new in here, respect
that within the parameters the moderators define as respect for all
opinion in here.
Nokton

Josh
2006-May-20, 12:06 AM
Can't there only be one universe, by definition? To say that something exists outside the universe makes it part of the universe. The universe is just expanded to incorporate it. The known universe describes the stuff we know about but that just continues to grow with all new things dicovered or described to exist anywhere.

01101001
2006-May-20, 12:30 AM
Who is to say your definition of the universe
is valid? More than anyone elses?

I offered a standard definition, and asked what Hern's was so I could understand the statement. What do you want from me?


If you are what you say, tell me, do
you understand Alberts Time Frames? If you do, then you understand
the current paradox relative to the event horizon of a black hole.
Your thoughts and ideas welcome, but Hern is new in here, respect
that within the parameters the moderators define as respect for all
opinion in here.

Yes. I am who I say -- whatever that means. What is your point? Whatever, stop lecturing me.

I asked a question. Can't I ask a question, Nokton? Do I have your permission?

Josh
2006-May-20, 11:00 AM
Nokton,

You have been warned here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=742272#post742272) for refusing to abide by the forum rules regarding civility and decorum. Prior to that you were suspended (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=642935#post642935) for similar behaviour. This latest outburst and your apparent inability to heed the warnings given to you means that your account will be suspended for three days. Next time it will be a permanent ban. When you return, please check your tone at the door and refresh yourself with the forum rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845).

searlesgold
2006-May-20, 11:59 PM
SUMMARY: The Big Bang describes how the Universe began as a single point 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since, but it doesn't explain what happened before that. Researchers from Penn State University believe that there should be traces of evidence in our current universe that could used to look back before the Big Bang. According to their research, there was a contracting universe with similar space-time geometry to our expanding universe. The universe collapsed and then "bounced" as the Big Bang.

View full article (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/beyond_big_bang.html)
What do you think about this story? post your comments below.

This is a good question! My interest of the universe began when I was about 8 yrs. old and today I am happy to be 66! I am sorry to admitt that I have no more education than High School. But this dosen't mean I am without common "LOGIC"! Logic has been the tool that provides me with answers to questions I have and ones such as this one, I am replying to!

One thing we all can be sure of, there could never have been a moment without Infinity in some form! Clearly, Infinity Dose Exist, when thinking of DISTANCE and or Time!? This is a clue as to what "Might" have been exisiting before the "Big Bang" theory if indeed, that is what happened?

Since there could never have been a beginning to Infinity, to me this.....
suggests that there could never have been a moment without Temperature!, to some degree! (pardon the pun). With little sense at all, No Heat.... Temperature Drops! My unanswered question is how far can Temperature Drop, before, What Happens? My therory is that, Temperature with a continuing Drop, will reach a point of pressure which will eventually Explode! (I'm not sure about this).

Could it be that we are looking in the wrong direction when we refer to the Big Bang Theory, meaning that the Big Bang, is what's Going to End ALL forms of solid matter in the entire Universe and we discover that this is what's been going on for infinit years, "We are Here and then we are not!, We are Here and then we are not!, We are Here and then we are not!" Since time is no factor to the Universe, this concept is just as possible as any other Theory!?
I LOVE IT!!

One thing I remain sure of.....if there was a "Big Bang" I can't believe there was ANY solid matter or any source of Heat! The only thing that could have been, is Infinity of time. The Black Matter we see at night between all seeable objects such as, Stars, Galaxies, Nebulas, Planets, etc. etc. is the......."Color of Infinity".

So, before the "Big Bang Theory" there would have been only...."BLACK"!!!

What do ya think about that? My fine Feathered Friend.
I do thank you for your time and consideration

From the Gray Matter of: SearlesGold

astro-orange
2006-May-23, 08:42 AM
Too much banning and bossing by the moderators. Im out.

Oliver

bluedog30
2006-Oct-12, 08:50 PM
Hi, i've just found this site and registered immediately. I have spent the last couple of years Big Banging my own mind - Einstein to Sharma, et al, with a particular interest in the origins of our Universe. I have learned a lot, including just how much of quantum physics/ Big Bang is theoretical supposition. However, there is something exciting about having freedom within established theories for raising your own questions and answers.

Unfortunately, my opportunities to discuss any of this with anyone is severely limited and it's frustrating not being able to share a find/ theory with people who can either tell me how brilliant i am, or how stupid. I suspect the latter may be the norm.

I hope that, if accepted to your group, i will have all the critics i will ever need, and maybe a chance to argue some points of my own. There may even be a chance of sharing other interests with some of you, like my love of Clive Barker of "Hellraiser" fame, as well as a good Malt Whisky.

Anyway, a question - Big bang theory proposes an expanding Universe. A current question about this is that it has been shown that the expansion is accelerating and nobody knows why. Is it possible that the Universe is not now expanding, but is actually in it's contracting stage, with the acceleration caused by forces, the rubber band effect, pulling everything back into the "Centre Origin Point", possibly prior to another Big Bang?

Anybody out there know something about this?

Looking forward to your thoughts

Bluedog30

Sean Clayden
2006-Oct-12, 09:03 PM
If the big bang theory was to be upheld, where did all the matter in the universe come from (and there is a lot of it) metals, gases, liquids etc.

WaxRubiks
2006-Oct-12, 09:05 PM
Anyway, a question - Big bang theory proposes an expanding Universe. A current question about this is that it has been shown that the expansion is accelerating and nobody knows why. Is it possible that the Universe is not now expanding, but is actually in it's contracting stage, with the acceleration caused by forces, the rubber band effect, pulling everything back into the "Centre Origin Point", possibly prior to another Big Bang?

Anybody out there know something about this?



it is expanding and the expansion is accelerating.
if it is infact contracting(I have wondered this myself) then there is something about the geometry of space that scientists don't know about.

WaxRubiks
2006-Oct-12, 09:07 PM
If the big bang theory was to be upheld, where did all the matter in the universe come from (and there is a lot of it) metals, gases, liquids etc.


what is matter?

Sean Clayden
2006-Oct-12, 09:13 PM
what is matter?

http://www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_intro.html


My point is that it is something. Something does not normally come out of nothing hanging around for a while............:think:

WaxRubiks
2006-Oct-12, 09:50 PM
http://www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_intro.html


My point is that it is something. Something does not normally come out of nothing hanging around for a while............:think:


sorry, you link didn't explain what matter actually was just where to find it etc.

Sean Clayden
2006-Oct-12, 09:57 PM
sorry, you link didn't explain what matter actually was just where to find it etc.


I dont understand what your getting at. Let me try and explain. There is stuff, bits, solids, gases, tummy fluff........in the universe. How did it get there ?

If you imagine the beginning of time/the universe etc there would be nothing.............

Where did my tummy fluff come from ????????????

:naughty:

WaxRubiks
2006-Oct-12, 10:02 PM
I dont understand what your getting at. Let me try and explain. There is stuff, bits, solids, gases, tummy fluff........in the universe. How did it get there ?



well somepeople think that the Universe could just be discribed as a system of information. So there may really not be any "stuff" as such but I suppose you are right that even the information has to come from somewhere and be stored somehow.

Blob
2006-Oct-12, 10:08 PM
Researchers from Penn State University believe that there should be traces of evidence in our current universe that could used to look back before the Big Bang. According to their research, there was a contracting universe with similar space-time geometry to our expanding universe. The universe collapsed and then "bounced" as the Big Bang.

Hum,
At first i thought they were talking about big crunch theories, but they are not...(Bold for the benefit of Frog march )
(Most cosmologists discarded the big crunch theories in favour of forever expanding (or currently accelerating) type versions.
Evidence such as observations of type Ia supernovae etc, seems to point towards an accelerating space-time.)

When the universe does become a wasteland of nothingness, then according to Professor Roger Penrose the few particles (if we assume they remain) will have no other particles to `interact with` (the other particles are beyond the observable universes horizon) and time` becomes meaningless` - this may be the conditions to `reset` the universe to a state similar to before the big bang.

Watch (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/06/hardtalk/penrose18jan.ram) Sir Roger Penrose talk about before the big bang. (realplayer stream)

Sean Clayden
2006-Oct-12, 10:13 PM
If the universe is expanding, then its current contents cannot be increasing. If anything we are being diluted by empty space.

With the expanding process, surely there could only be nothing or empty space beyond that that we know exists or we are increasing in size along with the expansion.

WaxRubiks
2006-Oct-12, 10:37 PM
I don't believe in a big crunch. I think it is a one time branething BB and expansion only .

A big crunch is too thisuniverse-centric.

Cougar
2006-Oct-13, 05:16 PM
Where did my tummy fluff come from ????????????
Heisenberg Uncertainty allows -- no demands -- that quantum fluctuations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation) occur, where the amount of their energy is inversely proportional to the length of time they "exist". Conceivably, such an occurrence underwent exponential inflation before it had time to "repay its energy debt" back to the vacuum.
"In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time." -- Edward P. Tryon

"The laws of nature must have existed before even time began in order for the beginning to happen. We say this, we believe it, but can we prove it? No." -- Leon Lederman
Hence, your tummy fluff. QED. :)

Sean Clayden
2006-Oct-15, 07:54 PM
If the big bang happened from a singularity, could it be possible that the universe (the one before we currently know) dissapeared over time into a black hole (singularity). This then expanded (for what ever reason. the big bang) into the universe as is is today ?

Blob
2006-Oct-15, 08:52 PM
hum,
it is generally thought that it will not - the big crunch has been cancelled.

The latest theories suggest big bang - expansion -----big bang ---- expansion ----big bang expansion-----big bang ---- expansion-----big bang ---- expansion-----big bang ---- expansion-----big bang ---- expansion-----big bang ---- expansion-----big bang ---- expansion-----big bang ---- expansion-----big bang ---- expansion-----big bang ---- expansion-----big bang ---- expansion-----big bang ---- expansion...er, etc.

transreality
2006-Oct-15, 10:21 PM
Our universe is just one bubble expanding in the surrounding quantum froth. It will eventually expand and 'pop' allowing the surrounding medium to reenter the space, the universe will probably have dispersed beyond recognition by then in any case. Other universes are presumably existing in simultaneous multitude, forming and popping...

GOURDHEAD
2006-Oct-16, 01:25 PM
http://www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_intro.html
My point is that it is something. Something does not normally come out of nothing hanging around for a while............:think:From a recent epiphantic seizure I have acquired an explanation of how to get "something" from "nothing". The quantum fluctuation posited to have occurred in a heretofore undefined domain and generated the universe and its expansion characteristics is actually an artifact of the Euclidean geometry of space resulting from something analogous (extrapolatably) to delirium tremors in humans traveling through space in a phase like way. These tremors (spacequakes if you like) deform local space in each locality at the planck level and above to generate energy and mass in each of its observable forms reserving the sub-planck level convolutionary deformations for dark energy and some currently unspecified locally anchored standing wave space modulations as manifestations of dark matter. Put simply something is but the instantaneous in-phase correlations of nothing to which the conservation laws of mass and energy apply.
l

Sean Clayden
2006-Oct-16, 02:29 PM
From a recent epiphantic seizure I have acquired an explanation of how to get "something" from "nothing". The quantum fluctuation posited to have occurred in a heretofore undefined domain and generated the universe and its expansion characteristics is actually an artifact of the Euclidean geometry of space resulting from something analogous (extrapolatably) to delirium tremors in humans traveling through space in a phase like way. These tremors (spacequakes if you like) deform local space in each locality at the planck level and above to generate energy and mass in each of its observable forms reserving the sub-planck level convolutionary deformations for dark energy and some currently unspecified locally anchored standing wave space modulations as manifestations of dark matter. Put simply something is but the instantaneous in-phase correlations of nothing to which the conservation laws of mass and energy apply.
l

Thats easy for you to say.......

That doesn't explain that with the creation of the universe all the material we find within it wasn't there in another form in the first place. Was it a large ball of matter that somehow exploded when the right matter aligned ?

We would all like to know how it got there and why...

And to be honest we will never know but we try......

PS. Did you find it hard to pass the dictionary you swallowed ???? :clap:

Dragon Star
2006-Oct-16, 06:47 PM
There can't be "just one" of anything in nature!

Tell that to the last creature of every extinct species in the universe.

Blob
2006-Oct-16, 07:12 PM
That doesn't explain that with the creation of the universe all the material we find within it wasn't there in another form in the first place...We would all like to know how it got there and why...

Hum,
it's not rocket science, the generally accepted answer is surprisingly easy to understand.

http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/html/symmetry.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0310/0310052.pdf (PDF)
http://www.astronomycast.com/extragalactic/more-evidence-for-the-big-bang/


And to be honest we will never know but we try......

Very true.

@RussT
"There can only be one" - HighlanderUSA (a famous quake player)

Sean Clayden
2006-Oct-16, 09:50 PM
[QUOTE=Blob;846640]Hum,
it's not rocket science, the generally accepted answer is surprisingly easy to understand.

http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/html/symmetry.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0310/0310052.pdf (PDF)
http://www.astronomycast.com/extragalactic/more-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

Its not rocket science, not hard to understand.............

All theory nothing concrete.....

All speculation.....

Some acknowledged........

More not......

No one is definitive in there answer.

Continue to speculate and theorise..........

Sean Clayden
2006-Oct-16, 09:52 PM
[QUOTE=Blob;846640]Hum,
it's not rocket science, the generally accepted answer is surprisingly easy to understand.

http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/html/symmetry.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0310/0310052.pdf (PDF)
http://www.astronomycast.com/extragalactic/more-evidence-for-the-big-bang/



Something easy for you.......

http://www.esa.int/esaKIDSen/SEMSZ5WJD1E_OurUniverse_0.html

Blob
2006-Oct-16, 10:12 PM
@Sean Clayden
Hum,
sry, i didn't mean to be condescending.

But you are right they are just theories - but the best theories that we have.

RussT
2006-Oct-16, 10:34 PM
@RussT
"There can only be one" - HighlanderUSA (a famous quake player)

I loved the movies and the series BUT this is not ME.