The What Was, Before The Big Bang

[xyz]

I read that before the big bang there was nothing, no time and no objects, nothing, there must of been space right?

[AuraNightheart]

Well, that's an interesting question. I personally think that something had to cause the Big Bang. However, lots of people think that space and time didn't really exist before the Big Bang, but if they didn't, then we wonder how the Big Bang happened. I'd personally like to think that maybe Time came to an end and decided it needed to restart, or 'refresh' in a way of sorts, and the Big Bang was its way of doing that. 

[Turtle]

I read that before the big bang there was nothing, no time and no objects, nothing, there must of been space right?

No space either. Because 'before' is a time reference it makes no logical sense to talk about before time started. It's an exercise in futility that will only make your brain hurt.

[xyz]

No space either. Because 'before' is a time reference it makes no logical sense to talk about before time started. It's an exercise in futility that will only make your brain hurt.

Firstly time never started, time is an arbitrary measurement that humanity invented based on motion of the earth and the sun.   It does not hurt my brain to think about anything, The logic involved clearly says that space existed before the big bang, it is quite simple that for anything to expand it needs space to expand into, the big bang had to have space to happen in.  It is without doubt that space is ''immortal'' and infinite.  ''nothing'' never existed and can not exist. This is a concept of the mind that rewinds everything back to a single point, a single point in space not of the starting of space.  Space does not and can not expand, it has no physical body.   The world as lost the plot in my opinion .  

We observe matter moving away from our locality of observation, we can not even observe space, space is ''transparent'' to sight, like looking through a sheet of glass, The cosmological red shift is not of space, it is of matter, we do not observe an expansion of space, we observe ''vanishing points'' of matter.

A light source travelling away from you will fade and eventually vanish from observation, the light source is still there but it is now to small and the light is so red shifted you simply just can not see it any more.

[HydrogenBond]

Data has shown that galaxies and first generation stars formed quite early in the universe; less than 1 billion years after BB. Since stars undergo fusion and mass burn, and will radiant lots of energy, the mass of stars is falling with time. The energy can escape gravity easier than the mass. This means the local decrease in mass of the star is causing space-time to expand around the star via GR. If we multiply this by billions of stars per galaxy and billions of galaxies in the universe, universal space-time should reflect this. The red shift lowers the energy value so there is even less mass equivalent. 

 

Although the universe has expanded since the beginning, the rate of expansion has gone both up and down in the past. This change may be based on the history stars; first forming, mass burning, expanding, reforming from old materials, burning, etc. Now we are in a heavy burn era that is amplifying GR loss around stars. The result is an accelerated expansion. 

 

A quasar cases its mass geometry to spread out over distance so local space-time also expands. Even if a black hole is left behind the mass equivalent is lower as energy red shifts. 

Edited August 30, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Turtle]

Firstly time never started, time is an arbitrary measurement that humanity invented based on motion of the earth and the sun.   It does not hurt my brain to think about anything, The logic involved clearly says that space existed before the big bang, it is quite simple that for anything to expand it needs space to expand into, the big bang had to have space to happen in.  It is without doubt that space is ''immortal'' and infinite.  ''nothing'' never existed and can not exist. This is a concept of the mind that rewinds everything back to a single point, a single point in space not of the starting of space.  Space does not and can not expand, it has no physical body.   The world as lost the plot in my opinion .  

We observe matter moving away from our locality of observation, we can not even observe space, space is ''transparent'' to sight, like looking through a sheet of glass, The cosmological red shift is not of space, it is of matter, we do not observe an expansion of space, we observe ''vanishing points'' of matter.

A light source travelling away from you will fade and eventually vanish from observation, the light source is still there but it is now to small and the light is so red shifted you simply just can not see it any more.

If you have all the answers, why did you bother asking the question?

[xyz]

If you have all the answers, why did you bother asking the question?

I didn't really ask a question, I started a debate, and I do not proclaim to know all the answers, my post was my opinion of the logic involved. I do not suppose in our lifetime we will ever know for sure. 

[Turtle]

I didn't really ask a question, I started a debate, and I do not proclaim to know all the answers, my post was my opinion of the logic involved. I do not suppose in our lifetime we will ever know for sure.

Erhm...you did in fact ask a question.

I read that before the big bang there was nothing, no time and no objects, nothing, there must of been space right?

Again, the answer is no, no space.

 

Big bang @WIKI [boldenation mine.]

... In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen Hawking, George F. R. Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the theory of relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's theory of general relativity to include measurements of time and space.[8][9] According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. ...

So their calculations trump anyone's gut-feelings and speculations without calculations.

[xyz]

Erhm...you did in fact ask a question.

Again, the answer is no, no space.

 

Big bang @WIKI [boldenation mine.]

 

So their calculations trump anyone's gut-feelings and speculations without calculations.

It quite amuses me that people have lost the concept of what time really is on earth, The day is based on the suns motion and a distance travelled by spin of the earth, no more , no less, it is to put it simple an invention. I could go on all day about how the caesium clock is as arbitrary as a normal clock, but science will argue back space-time, and then I would argue back time is dependent to the observer, we do not record how long a planet takes to orbit the sun, we are ironically recording our time watching the planet orbit the sun. 

[Pmb]

The truth of the matter is that nobody knows what was before the big bang. There's a theory called the Pre-Big Bang scenario which is based on string theory. Try looking it up using Google.

[sanctus]

xyz, try also to support your statements. Eg., the following are really strong statements and you do not support with anything:

 

 

 It is without doubt that space is ''immortal'' and infinite.  ''nothing'' never existed and can not exist.

 

Or

 

Space does not and can not expand, it has no physical body.

 

By just presenting statements like you did, you just lose all credibility...

[xyz]

xyz, try also to support your statements. Eg., the following are really strong statements and you do not support with anything:

 

 

 

Or

 

 

By just presenting statements like you did, you just lose all credibility...

Thank you I see your point, 

 

 

 It is without doubt that space is ''immortal'' and infinite.  ''nothing'' never existed and can not exist.   It is no misconception that space can not be destroyed, it can be occupied but does not have its own physical existence.  Space does not and can not expand, it has no physical body.  Space it not of like balloon qualities , where we observe the balloon expanding into a space. We also observe metal expansion and gas expansion, we observe this my measurable actions, unlike space which can not be measured on itself without using a point to point process we call distance.

 

 

Is that better?

[sanctus]

Yes it is, I can reply something :-)

 

So how do you define space? As the place where something can be?

What if you replace the "expansion space" which you dislike so much, and argue against with space not having a physical body, with between any point A and A+dA there is new space appearing? Eventually, expansion biols down to this, but instead of space exanding you just assume new space appears, your argument about not having a physical body is then no more appliable...

[xyz]

Yes it is, I can reply something :-)

 

So how do you define space? As the place where something can be?

What if you replace the "expansion space" which you dislike so much, and argue against with space not having a physical body, with between any point A and A+dA there is new space appearing? Eventually, expansion biols down to this, but instead of space exanding you just assume new space appears, your argument about not having a physical body is then no more appliable...

So how do I define space?  I define space as an infinite of ''nothing'' , a place that allows values to exist, I define without space that something can not exist because that something needs space to exist in, like an expansion needs space to expand into.

I am not quite clear on the other you are mentioning, but think you mean that between masses, I should argue that space is filled by a physical presence of electromagnetic radiation and cbmr but does not have any dependency of its own physical structure and that all mass and physical presence is independent of space. 

Any observed expansion increases the space between points, but the moving away point moves into more space and does not have an expansion of space itself.   The black background of space we observe is not a wall that is expanding, it is not a flat earth theory, there is no edge , there is only the lack of observation of any mass in that area including light sources because they are simply past their vanishing points relative to us, and our observation limitations create this boundary that is not really a boundary, 

The edge of the visual universe is not really the edge. I can prove this in logic by a central low watt light bulb in a huge warehouse, although the walls are there, the walls can not be seen by a central observer, the sight boundary is limited to the radius of light , Also you can walk away from an observer in a dark tunnel with a pen light, the light will soon vanish to the observer as distance increases, however the tunnel continues long after the light source vanishes. 

When eventually all the stars have left our visual universe to a distance that is not visible by the objects vanishing points, the visual universe will contract to a distance of only the milkyway, our universe will only have a radius of this, so if you base time of the big bang on expansion, when this occurs, time will be thrown back a few billion years because of the science process .

[Pmb]

xyz - Within the context of general relativity, space most certainly can expand and can be destroyed. Regarding the balloon analogy; most people misuse the analogy by thinking that its like a real balloon that, when expanded, occupies more space since they picture it as expanding into space. That's quite wrong and a misuse of the analogy. The analogy, correctly utilized, is that the surface of the balloon is what's expanding. But if you imagine that its expanding into something then you don't understand the analogy correctly. The analogy is one in two dimensions, not three dimensions. When you claim that the balloon is expanding into 3-space then all you're doing is misusing the analogy. The correct view of the analogy is to imagine that it's occupied only by two dimensional beings. As the surface of the balloon increases 2D beings, even thought they're at rest on the surface, move apart from each other. When they measure the amount of space that exists in their 2D world they find that as time goes on there is more and more of it. Define one point on the surface of the balloon as point N. Find the point which is the furthest away from it and call that point S. Now draw the straightest possible line possible that passes through N and you'll find that it passes through S. Place markers at equal intervals along that line. As time increases you'll find that there is more and more space between adjacent markers which means that the total length of the longest line is increasing.

 

So while you might imagine space as being "nothing" it actually has properties which can be measured and they have been measured and what was found is consistent with general relativity. One way to make measurements is to measure the shortest distances between two points in space. The nature of the measurements will describe the space itself. The results of those measurements will depend on the surrounding  matter.

 

So all your beliefs about space are wrong and have been proven to be wrong by observation.

[xyz]

 

 

xyz - Within the context of general relativity, space most certainly can expand and can be destroyed. Regarding the balloon analogy; most people misuse the analogy by thinking that its like a real balloon that, when expanded, occupies more space since they picture it as expanding into space. That's quite wrong and a misuse of the analogy. The analogy, correctly utilized, is that the surface of the balloon is what's expanding. But if you imagine that its expanding into something then you don't understand the analogy correctly. The analogy is one in two dimensions, not three dimensions. When you claim that the balloon is expanding into 3-space then all you're doing is misusing the analogy. The correct view of the analogy is to imagine that it's occupied only by two dimensional beings. As the surface of the balloon increases 2D beings, even thought they're at rest on the surface, move apart from each other. When they measure the amount of space that exists in their 2D world they find that as time goes on there is more and more of it. Define one point on the surface of the balloon as point N. Find the point which is the furthest away from it and call that point S. Now draw the straightest possible line possible that passes through N and you'll find that it passes through S. Place markers at equal intervals along that line. As time increases you'll find that there is more and more space between adjacent markers which means that the total length of the longest line is increasing.

 

So while you might imagine space as being "nothing" it actually has properties which can be measured and they have been measured and what was found is consistent with general relativity. One way to make measurements is to measure the shortest distances between two points in space. The nature of the measurements will describe the space itself. The results of those measurements will depend on the surrounding  matter.

 

So all your beliefs about space are wrong and have been proven to be wrong by observation.

I would say you are not considering my balloon analogy,  I am thinking that a balloon expanding with points on the surface bursts, and all the points continue to travel or if you like expand.  The science evidence that is offered by science that the visual universe is expanding, is redshift, redshift based on the visual of matter and not based on a visual of space itself, If you insist that space is expanding, then you must be able to identify space, and observe space. If you can not observe space itself, you certainly can not observe any said expansion of space. According to science you are saying that the black background of space is expanding, logically the matter you observe that is redshifting as not got there yet.

Edited August 31, 2015 by xyz

[kowalskil]

Subatimic particles, I read, existed  before the B.B.