OK SO THE BIG BANG I DON't BUY IT. There must have been something there in the first place? What?

Answer 1

there are two conflicting viewpoints to this question:

1/ one group believes that the universe had a begining and it's finite, but nothing happen before the big bang because all the laws of physics break down near the bang.

2/ the second group believes the universe has no begining and no ending, it's timeless or infinite

The point of all this is that scientists have known for a long time that the Theory of Relativity (which involves things on a huge scale) and Quantum Theory (which involves things on the subatomic scale) are not compatible with each other.

Until now, that is.

A remarkable general agreement has been developing recently around what is called "quantum cosmology," where scientists believe that a merger of the quantum theory and Einstein's relativity may resolve these aged old questions.

In particular, an appealing but startling new picture is emerging in quantum cosmology which may be able to synthesize some of the great mysteries of the universe.

Quantum cosmology proposes a beautiful synthesis of these different viewpoints. In the beginning there was Nothing. No space, no matter or energy. But according to the quantum principle, even Nothing was unstable. Nothing began to decay; i.e. it began to "boil," with billions of tiny bubbles forming and expanding rapidly. Each bubble became an expanding universe.

If this is true, then our universe is actually part of a much larger "multiverse" of parallel universes, which is truly timeless.

As Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg has said, "An important implication is that there wasn't a beginning; that there were increasingly large Big Bangs, so that the [multiverse] goes on forever - one doesn't have to grapple with the question of it before the Bang. The [multiverse] has just been here all along. I find that a very satisfying picture."

Universes can literally spring into existence as a quantum fluctuation of Nothing. (This is because the positive energy found in matter is balanced against the negative energy of gravity, so the total energy of a bubble is zero. Thus, it takes no net energy to create a new universe.)

this is only lt a theory that will have to satisfied a lot of other theories before it's even consider to be a strong possibility.

i don't totally agree with it (not that my opinion amounts to much) but for now it seems plausible.

Answer 2

At one level, we simply don't have any evidence to answer this question one way or the other. However, theoretically there are three main answers:

1) Since time is part of the universe, it began at the Big Bang, so there simply is no 'before the Big Bang' any more than there is a 'north of the north pole'. This view is that predicted from General Relativity, which is the theory that first described the expansion of the universe.

2) There was a 'previous universe' that underwent a 'Big Crunch'. This view is seen in some theories of quantum gravity (like quantum loop gravity), where the singularity predicted from view #1 is smoothed out by quantum effects.

3) The universe itself resides in a multi-dimensional realm of 'strings' or 'branes' that can collide and produce 'big bangs'. THis is the view promoted by string or M-theories.

The views 2) and 3) are *pure* speculation since the theories they are based on have no other demonstrated predictions that have been tested. General Relativity is a very well-tested theory that leads to view #1, but doesn't mesh well with quantum phenomena, which we expect to be important for the very early universe. My own view is that #2 is the 'best bet', but let's see how the various versions of quantum gravity play out. In particular, it is possible that some versions also lead to view #1 (which I happen to be fond of also).

Answer 3

There are various speculative ideas about what preceded the Big Bang, but not much evidence for any of them. The currently most favored idea is that there was a "false vacuum" that expanded, heated, and released particles as it fell into a lower energy state, thereby creating the Big Bang. This suggests that there are, in fact, lots of Big Bangs, none of which can ever contact the others. The false vacuum is empty, but it's not Nothing in the philosophical sense.

Why there is something instead of nothing is a difficult philosophical question that physics doesn't really address.
Religion doesn't really address the problem either, aside from
shouting "God" at it.

Answer 4

In the beginning of the 20th century amid an atmosphere of scientific revolution and discoveries, Albert Einstein fashioned his theory of general relativity. The basic tenet being that matter converts into energy and energy into matter (E=mc2). Relativity also proposed that gravity alters space and time; that the universe is decelerating; and that it is expanding. Deceleration and expansion implied an initial explosion of the universe, and indeed, a beginning. Einstein's Relativity completely uprooted Kant's science and philosophical notions. The universe is FINITE. Subsequent observations have continued to solidify the theory of relativity down to this very day. Roger Penrose, a leading astrophysicist of our day, declared in 1994 that Einstein's theory of general relativity was "the most accurately tested theory known to science." (This after confirming the theory to a precision of 99,999,999,999,999 parts in a hundred trillion.) Yet, Einstein's own theory bothered him as it bothered most scientists (and still does). The physics itself was not the problem but rather the philosophical implication of Einstein's findings. For, to have a beginning necessarily implies one who began it. To have a point in time which can be called "the first moment" in time and space and matter and energy means that before then there was nothing. The question then is: where did this come from? And how? and by who? The implication then is there must be a Supreme intelligence transcendental to space, matter, and time. The Big Bang implies God.

Answer 5

There is no "before" the big bang. Time did not exist. Your question is like asking "what's south of the south pole?". The is no south of the south pole.

Where did the big bang come from? Well, the current theory that is accepted is that there are 2 or more branes (like membranes) that osolate. When the branes come in contact with each other, they cause a big bang which MAY form a seperate universe each time they collide.

To sum it up, the theory hypothesises that the origin of the big bang could have occurred when two parallel branes touched.

If you want more information as to what happened after the big bang, pm me.

Answer 6

A long time ago, I read an article "Before the Big Bang: The Big Foam". It expressed one idea of what the state of the universe might have been prior to the big bang. I have never been able to find it online. I found it fascinating. Here's the reference.

Bartusaik, M., 1987, Before the Big Bang: The Big Foam: Discover, v. 8, p. 76- 83.

And, while I'm on the fence about religion, I was raised Catholic and recall some parts of the bible. When I read that article, I thought of this passage from Genesis.

"And the world was void and without form ... and God said, Let there be light."

Big foam, then big bang?

Answer 7

I don't have the answer for you, and its possible that nobody ever will, but be careful about applying our everyday knowledge of how our world works to something like the Big Bang. If we already know that Newtonian physics breaks down the closer you get to the speed of light (which is why there is Quantum physics), then why can't there be other processes that are also so anti-intuitive that they're just as hard to believe?

Answer 8

A basic understanding of chemistry will tell you energy cannot be created or destroyed.


The principle is simple in concept but produces some astronomical conclusions. If you cannot create or destroy energy than energy was always there in the 'first place'.

And then you can get philosophical and contemple the fact that our lives never began and never end, but are simply the product of entropy working on an energetic system that had no beginning and knows no end.

Answer 9

The Big Bang does not say that the Universe was created out of nothing. It says that at one point, all the matter in the Universe was compressed into an extremely dense and hot state, which then violently exploded and that the expansion of the Universe is a result of that initial explosion.

Answer 10

Author of the Brazil of this mechanics of the universe? I am the atom great “Universe”, I divide myself in three forces: Prótons, Elétrons and Nêutrons. To the Prótons it is the positive power, but with the negative return, and to electrons it is the negative power, but with the positive return. In what it says respect to the Nêutrons is the responsibility to act the end to unbalance the positive forces or the negative in its related limits. Thus it neutralizes the start and the extremity of all the sources of being able of the universe (mainly the sun, the planets and the Interstellar system). The energies that come of the place for where to go, and go for the place of where they come.