What existed before the Big Bang?
--asks Michael Y. from Detroit, MI.
Alison Snyder • August 21, 2006
![Our bubbly beginning? [CREDIT:SXC]](https://scienceline.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/bubble2-sxc-crop.jpg)
Our bubbly beginning? [CREDIT:SXC]
Once upon a time, 14 billion years ago, a cosmic explosion released an immense amount of heat and pressure. All the particles and energy in our universe, once confined to a space about the size of a dime, raced away from one another at tremendous speeds. As the hot particles cooled and continued to expand into space, matter formed and the stars and galaxies of our universe were born. And so, the story of our universe began… or did it?
Maybe something came before the Big Bang. Physicists have tried for decades to write the mathematical prelude to our universe’s fiery birth, but Einstein’s theory of general relativity stopped them short. An immense amount of matter and energy were built up in an infinitesimally small point at the moment of our universe’s birth, and the laws of general relativity that govern large bodies and systems in the universe are no longer appropriate on such a small scale. Instead, quantum theory, which deals with the quirky properties of the very small subatomic particles in the universe, takes over. Traveling to the beginning of it all, at least our all, requires some way of reconciling general relativity with quantum theory.
“The unification of these two is the only thing that allows us to look before the Big Bang,” says Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at City University of New York. So far, the leading theory of unification, according to Kaku, is string theory—the idea that tiny strings vibrating in unseen dimensions of space make up all matter, light, energy, everything. If our universe is described in eleven dimensions filled with these subatomic strings, physicists believe the fundamental physical forces can be unified and they can get closer to describing the instant of our universe’s birth and maybe even what came before it.
Armed with string theory, Kaku and others speculate that before our Big Bang, there were simply more universes. “Our universe could have either popped into existence or collided with another universe,” he says. Imagine a bubble bath where each bubble represents a universe. In this multiversal tub that existed before our Big Bang—and still exists today—universe bubbles are colliding, popping, budding new bubbles, expanding and contracting. If this scenario really exists, “Big Bangs happen all the time,” says Kaku.
Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing: a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy. This seemingly tranquil nothingness universe was actually unstable and some physicists believe that a fluctuation in the vacuum caused our universe to pinch off from its empty existence without time and space to a universe that was large enough to expand. Like a bubble in a bath, our universe had to grow instantaneously in order to survive and escape the collapsing fate of small bubbles.
This “quantum leap” involved four of the dimensions of the empty universe, which now frame the universe we live in. Expanding suddenly, this event sparked the Big Bang and caused the further expansion which created matter and continues to push the galaxies apart today. Meanwhile, the seven remaining dimensions shrunk to an almost inconceivable size, much smaller than an atom.
String theory is so far a purely mathematical journey back to these primordial moments, and some physicists are considering different explanations. The higher dimensions of our universe, if they exist, cannot be directly explored because today’s instruments are not powerful enough to measure their small size. But there are experiments—both Earth-bound and space-based—that may provide evidence to support string theory.
Next year, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be turned on outside Geneva. Physicists hope that it will begin to create supersymmetric particles (a.k.a. “sparticles”) that Kaku says are a vibration of strings. If and when another new apparatus called the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna goes up into space, physicists will use its three laser-connected satellites to look for vibrations of space and time, known as gravitational waves, left over from the Big Bang. Kaku is confident these experiments and others will provide physical evidence for higher dimensions and string theory.
But results from these new experiments are many years away, and until then, physicists will continue to speculate about what might have existed before the Big Bang. Many hope that these experiments will finally shed some light on the mystery. While we’re all waiting, perhaps the best we can do is slip into a bubble bath and contemplate the unknown.
191 Comments
At the start of the universe, during the inflation period, did matter not travel faster than the speed of light?
Before was only sleeping brahma. We are inside cosmic mind. For example if we close our eyes and imagine something that lives in our mind so the same we are inside cosmic mind of so coled brahma, god, supreme conscience.
Gail: Immediately after the big bang *space* was expanding much, much faster than the speed of light. Even then the rules of special relativity applied: Information could not travel faster than light, and hence no object could travel through space faster than light. The result is that objects that were in close proximity just after the Big Bang got separated, in some cases for bilions of years, before they came back in contact with each other. This scenario explains why the cosmic microwave background is so uniform. Different parts of the universe which now seem disconnected were in fact connected before that period of faster-than-light inflation.
I have been wondering if we eventuelly will go back to this nothingness and then have the big bang start all over again. What do you think??
Thank you, Marie-Louise
The greatest mystery of all (at least for me) is not the what and how, but the why for all this grand universe we live in. Maybe we will never find the reason, but still it is a privilage for me to live in an era of such great discoveries and understanding of the nature around us (esp in cosmology). What lies beyond the big bang will maybe bring us closer in understanding why the cosmos was created. Thank you.
I find the whole concept of space and time absolutely phenomonal. Of course not every little detail, or indeed, many large details can be fully explained yet, however I do feel in time this will be so. Religion to me seems such a primitive tool to explain things such as our origins and the birth of the universe. I consider myself an athiest, however one little question continues to niggle my intellectual mind. Nothing? Even with all iv read on the subject, my mind is simply unable to comprehend nothing? Before the big bang, before quantum physics. Its unbelievable void that cannot be filled. God, as a religious person would tell you. Any ideas?
I don’t know anything much about science, but I figured out what came before the Big Bang ages ago.
Maybe it’s because I don’t know science that I was able to get my head around it.. The inescapable conclusion is that the Universe DID come from nothingness, but everyone seems to be dancing around that paradox as if it’s an annoyance, instead of embracing it as the source of the solution. There IS one thing that can create itself, but it’s almost anti-science.
I’d spell it out, but nobody really seems to care.. If you’re really that interested it took me a couple of hours to think it through, so intellectually-minded people can certainly crack it in a lot less time than me.
in the beginning God? – maybe?
I’ve always wondered… If the assumption that the universe will expand and collapse over and over is true (which is still debated – some say it may just expand forever. I personally think that it will collapse again) and this ‘bang and crunch’ scenario happens an infinite number of times, then wouldn’t you and I actually occur again? Maybe not for a trillion cycles but eventually, given an infinite number of attempts? If this is true then not only would you occur again, but you would occur and eventually be every consciousness – you, me, a dog, a blade of grass – the bug you just squashed, etc. Not only that but you would have every possible experience – good and bad. You would be a king, a slave. You would experience the greatest pleasures and your worst fears. You get the idea. I’m an atheist but this scenario is both profoundly comforting (people are always looking for a way to believe in immortality) and terrifying as well. If nothing else it’s fun to think about.
There has always been universes. Don’t think of time as a line but as a sphere. Time can go anywhere but will eventually come back to a starting point. The universe will expand for another 6 billion years then grvity will take over and contract the universe into a big crunch. When all this universal mass reaches and infintesimal spot the energy will be released in the form of another big bang and another universe
chance beauclair, yes that is a theory, but as far as we know, the universe is expanding and accelerating. It seems to have no intention of going back together in a “big crunch”, even though that would be the logical assumption.
Define time.
The most obvious “problem” with the big bang is certainly its origins. Even in the world of the very small (quantum theory) there is a problem with matter being created from absolutely nothing. That tiny ball of high density matter that created the big bang had to, in essence, create itself if we assume there was nothing else out there. And one cannot simply go in circles with the argument that universes have always existed and that time is spherical. The fact is, all matter needs to come from somewhere. That being the case is leads me to the most puzzling conclusion of all. The big bang cannot exist in terms of definitions set up by observable nature. It is thusly an event that must be classified as outside of observable science… also known as “supernatural.” A word I shudder to utter.
Well i’m not sure but there ws nothing and then somthing. Maybe think of the universe as somthing inside somthing inside somthing ect. so in thery maybe the nothingness was somthing in the terms of somthing else but the making it be nothing but somthing at the same time. And the somthing that has the somthing we live in had a nothing but at its will changed it to a greater somthing. So Is there a somthing inside our somthing! Sciencline you gave me new stuff to think about. Thanks…
I have thought about this for 30 years. I detest the religious explanations as they tend to short circuit scietific thought and tend to be mutually exclusive. One could argue that there had to be a beginning, a first action, for without it there could not be a second action. But this logic fails us as a falacy. I prefer expansion and contraction theory but feel it is as superficial as Newton’s laws to explain the totality. The identification of more dark matter would help this theory immensely. String theory with its “missing dimensions” seems to be untenable. The best possible evidence will be indirect and presumptive. The search for more data, more concrete data, that which we can see or otherwise measure by some method holds the most promise at least in our lifetimes and I would think that this will strengthen expansion/contraction theory or at least as a stepping stone to a more universal explanation of how. I think the vast majority of us have some hope that the How will eventually lead to the Why.
I concur with Tyler’s observation regarding matter coming from some source. However, the intriguing thing to me is what entity held up the pre-bang dime size material? And what were the dimensions of this void? But, in the final analysis, you must acccept the fact that something does not come from nothing. Although, science will attempt to quantum leap you through an array of theories – it can not in any manner, shape or form explain the origin of the dime size material. Believe me, I’m no religious zealot, only an inquisitive mind searching for answers to the age old question. I have reached a plateau of thinking regarding this “matter” (a little pun) of the universe’s origin. But, after several years of pondering over this question, I have made one keen observation – I have wasted a lot of time.
R/ELTC
Albert, you asked for a definition of “time”. Well, here it is:
Time is the one thing that prevents everything from happening all at once.
Most of cosmology seems to be built on very fragile foundations! Logically, there cannot have been a “fluctuation” in nothing – nothing being no space, no time, no matter, no energy.
Yet many, or even the majority, of cosmologists tell us that is exactly what happened. I have never heard an explanation for this impossibility, other than just “counterintuitive”.
Similarly, all that is in the universe cannot have been concentrated at a point of infinite density. What on earth is infinite density?
The same “explanation”, counterintuitive, is always given for those other impossibilties – the constant speed of light, whatever one´s relative speed, and the effect of relative movement on time measurement.
Robert
If we came from nothing then there must of been an infinite amount of time when there was nothing otherwise there was a period of time before the big bang when there was matter which would mean we came from such matter instead of coming from nothing. Since the scientific argument posed abbove is we in fact came from nothing, I again state what logically follows from that argument is that there was an infinite amount of time before the big bang when there was nothing.
The scientifc argument presented above is also that I am a finite being. However, the finite can not live within the infinite because a finite amount of anything within the infinite is zero. (i.e. any specific finite measurment within a infinite field must be zero because in an infinite spectrum there is no relative meausurement. For example if you are travelling to a planet that is an infinite amount of miles away whether you went o miles, 100 miles, or a hundred trillion miles you are no closer or farther to the planet than when you started which means you have effectively travelled no closer to your target or you have effectively travelled 0 miles towards your infinite target.
Accordingly, I either never existed or I have always existed. I exist therefore I must have existed forever and will exist forever. I am in your thoughts and you are in mine because we are all part of the same infinite being. However I ultimately control this being because I decided I will.
The Patty Spoke
Re Canice´s post, current theory says that Big Bang was also the beginning of time. There was no time, space, matter, energy, popsicles – nothing before Big B.. If there was time before, then one would have to assume it stretched back infinitely far. The main difficulty for me with infinite time, is how can anything ever happen at any given point in time? I would have to be sitting here at my computer an infinite number of times going backwards. Yet, how can there be a beginning of time? What happened five minutes before it began? Is it like the universe is supposed to be – closed but with no boundary? And what does that mean??
Perhaps once we collectively realize that phrases like “nothing” and “infinite” do not and can not describe physical reality, we will make another quantum leap in our knowledge of the universe. Disregarding mathematics for a moment, we cannot use these mental crutches to insert into incomplete theories as some sort of finality. The round-and-round discussions of “Well, then what is the universe expanding into?” and “What was there before the Big Bang?” (which end with “infinity” and “nothing”, respectively) are, at this phase, pointless at best, and crippling to discovery at worst.
Our universe is not expanding into another universe, which is also expanding into another universe, and so on. And there was not “nothing” prior to the Big Bang. There are not an infinite number of universes expanding and contracting in an infinite loop. Using these to cap off a theory is the equivalent of Lincoln ending the Gettysburg Address with “now let’s go out there and kick some ass!”, or capping the Washington Monument with a Tupperware bowl.
How to prove it? Well, that’s a tough one. But it will happen, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Many scientists seem to believe that we are close now to understanding everything, including how there came to be a universe. (Stephen Hawking is one such.) Yet, it seems to me that on the fundamental question of why there is a universe and whether it came or has always existed there is nothing more than wild guesses. I think the truth is that scientists haven´t a clue on this.
I sent an email recently to an physicist-cosmologist asking if he really understood how all of the universe could have been concentrated at a point of infinite density and what is infinite density. I also asked him if he understood how it could be that clocks vary according to their relative speeds and how one always measures the speed of light the same irrespective of one´s relative speed. That is, understand how apparently impossible things can be. He sent back a long email, in which he said that no-one understands these things and that we just have to accept that they are so.
Hi Allison. Nice article…. send me an email at three boys brewery .
Ralph
due to the death of my brother, I wondered where the universe came from so i read all the books about astrophysics and quantum theory i could stomach. after a couple of years i learned alot but i realized that although we do understand a lot, we dont really know anything
I am reminded of Abbott’s FlatLand when I think about the Big Bang and associated ideas. Perhaps we perceive the universe as having a starting point because we observe thru the lens of a 4 dimensional being. Perhaps there is no change, no big bang but only our perception. I am reminded of an old movie reel. Its all there, but we can’t grasp it, we can only grasp it as it seemingly plays out on the screen.
I think we are getting hung up on the word “nothing”. Nothing simple means no….thing. Language makes a difficult concept even harder to grasp because there are no words for it or experiential validation even if there were words for it. So how do you name something that is not a something? Our four dimensional nature collapses reality into things. “That” which manifests as what we call the universe is pure potential. We are “that” experiencing and observing “that” though the prism of our four dimensional existence.
I agree with Bernie – a lot has been worked out about the Universe, which may or may not be true, but about the fundamental question of why there is a Universe at all I haven´t read anything very convincing. I don´t think scientists have a clue on this and it may be that they never will. Some aspects of physics and cosmology seem almost like magic. Since I was about 11 years old, I did not believe in a Creator and basically I still don´t -but the more I read on quantum mechanics, relativity, Big Bang etc. and all the other bits of “magic”, the more I wonder. It seems impossible to me that there was a beginning to the Universe, but it seems equally impossible that it has always existed.
“Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing: a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy.”
I want to point out that the use of the word ‘nothing’ above is not warranted, because whatever you mean it is not nothing.
Language is the only thing we have to represent things, if we then start with nothing why then do we continue to talk of it as something.
“…Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing…”
How can Kaku use the words: “sprung, from,” when there is nothing for it to have sprung from.
Just because people are scientists does not entitle them to speak in absurd sentences.
What he should say if he does not want to appear to speak in absurdity, should be the following:
“…it must have sprung from nothing we know at present or can ever know, but it is something…”
instead of: “…it also may have sprung from nothing…”
Gerry
Gerry You are right there is no phraselogy in the english language that I am aware of that can express the concept of something coming from nothing. Even the phrase i just used “Something coming from Nothing” implies something is coming from some type of matter why else would I use the the term “from”. Interesting.
The Patty Spoke
The English language has no difficulty in expressing the idea of something coming from nothing – what is difficult to understand is how it could happen, but it is the case that many cosmologists believe that is exactly what did happen. There was nothing – at all, no space, no matter, no energy – then there was something. Weird? Of course, but then what about clocks keeping different time if they move. Why? no-one knows. Or how you will always measure the speed of a photon the same, whatever your relative speed. Or how an elementary particle acts differently if you look at it. Or that an atom is over 99% empty space. And so on – so much that seems like “magic”.
paper i just wrote for my philosophy 101 class.. i didnt proof read it yet.. but i thought you guys might appreciate it
Agnosticism
Agnosticism is the belief neither in atheism, nor in theism, however, before defining agnosticism one must first grasp both of these countering beliefs. Atheism is the choice not to believe in any God, while theism is the believe in a higher, divine being, or beings. Agnosticism is stuck between these two sets of beliefs, and is defined as neither an abandonment of belief in all higher being, nor an acceptance in higher beings.
To prove to you that agnosticism is the only true belief that should be adopted by all who care to think on the question of God, I will first show you how theism and atheism are flawed. Any logically thinking person simply cannot adopt the belief of theism. Based on the fact that we cannot prove the existence of the universe, why should one say that a higher being created it, a being that we cannot comprehend with any of our bodily senses. These theists are equally as foolish as the atheist. If one believed that a higher being created all, could one not argue that they themselves are that higher being they have no proof to deny it, who is to say that I did not create all of existence, for I exist now, who is to say that I have not forever existed even before birth. Nobody can prove me wrong just as nobody can prove me right. The same goes for many other seemingly crazy notions such as we do not exist or I am the only being to exist and everyone around me exists because I will them to exist, this thought may seem crazy to some but can it be proven wrong, or proven right; just as the existence of god, it cannot. This is why agnosticism is the only belief that makes sense. Any intelligent person does not believe in something with out any proof so why would any intelligent person believe anything when it comes to our creation. The answer is our own quest for the truth, but we must accept that no matter how hard we search for the truth we will never find it.
Atheism also cannot be adopted by any logical person because how can one know that he did not come from a higher being. How can an atheist explain the universe with one hundred percent certainty, the answer is he cannot, and nobody will ever be able to, the creation of all things will forever be lost in history. Theories that atheists use simple do not make sense, how can everything come from nothing, like in the big bang theory. My own theory that I am god and I will everything around me to be, makes more sense than the big bang theory, however I am not foolish enough to throw everything aside and follow that theory.
Agnosticism therefore is the believe in both theism and atheism but not the acceptance of both, one may believe that there might be a God who created everything, or that there might not be a God and the universe itself was created by explainable meaning that we simple cannot yet explain. Agnosticism therefore it the only logical set of beliefs, why put all you belief in something that cannot be proven right or wrong. Instead accept that it will never be proven and look at both sides as a possible explanation for your life.
you guys are both wrong
I think it makes sense to be an agnostic, but for different reasons from those Sean cites. You do not need absolute proof to believe or disbelieve something – not even in a court of law, where the standard is “beyond reasonable doubt”. I strongly believe that, where I live, the temperature tomorrow is unlikely to reach 100 degrees – I am not undecided on this. Neither am I undecided on the prospect of someone running a three-minute mile in the next decade or a Martian winning Wimbledon next year. I do, however, favour agnosticism because I think the arguments are much more finely balanced on this and I will probably continue to think this way until someone comes up with a believable explanation of how the Universe could appear from absolutely nothing. The only “explanation” I´ve heard is that there was a fluctuation in the nothing. I kid you all not – it was a physicist who suggested that.
I am infinitely annoyed. I just spent 1 hour creating a post and that stupid number sum thing said I entered the wrong number but I didn’t. Well the error erased everything I wrote. So I am too annoyed to recreate my post now. Anyways it was a stream of consciesnous so it can’t be recreated. Just friendly advice to other posters save your post in word before you hit submit comment so you don’t lose your work! I will write again in a month or two when I am less annoyed!
The Patty Spoke
Canice:
I know the feeling! I had my 654 page sequel to War and Peace, laid out for the publisher and ready to go. I got asked to add 3 and 6 and the battery in my calculator ran out. I lost the whole thing, so I know how you must feel. Still, you´ll have to do what I did.
“Once upon a time…………………”
Canice:
You bring up an interesting point. It may actually be the inability for current language(s) to describe a seemingly paradoxical event such as ‘something arising from nothing’ which is limiting our understanding of the origin of the universe.
At times throughout history, the advancement of mathematics was hindered by inability of the ponderers to understand concepts such as ‘zero’, ‘infinity’, and ‘limits’. It took a great number of whisperings and euphemisms for these concepts to be accepted by the societies that the minds which conceived them were living in.
I have been thinking of all of this a lot likely. Sumanth you helped me crystallize some thoughts. I think God and our existence can be explained with Math. The way I look at it is the infinite (or God) can not live within the finite. Mathematically the infinite can not exist within a finite range. For example, if your finite range is say 1 to 1 million, a subset of that range can not be infinity. On the other hand the finite not only can but must wholly exist within the infinite. For example, all finite ranges are subsets of the infinite. For example the number set -100 to 1000 wholly exists within the infinite number set. As we know the infinite number set “starts” at 0 (or the base point of the x or y axis) and goes on forevever for both negative and positive numbers. Accordingly, any finite number set will wholly exist within the infinite number set. We are a finite life force that must be a subset of an infinite life force which is God.
The above paragraph must now be rationalized in the context of my August 30th post where I rationalized the finite is essentially is nothing relative to the infinite.
The way I rationalize this is that our finite life force on earth is created by our own personal infinite life force. Our infinite life force creates the illusion that we are finite beings while we are on earth so our finite life force can experience certain aspects of existence that only a finite being can experience such as intense emotions. Intense emotions can not be truly experienced by an infinite being because any emotion by definition is a finite force. For example, you can only experience true happiness if you understand what hardship or loss is. You can only understand something as loss in a finite world. In an infinite world how can something die? Death by definition is a finite term.
Our infinite beings create the illusion of finitivity so when we die the intense emotions we experienced as finite beings can be subsumed (or experienced) by our infinite self when we die so our infinite life force can in a sense experience true emotion.
When you truly realize like I do that I am in fact a finite being that is a subset of an infinite being I choose to control my infinite existence by denying the illusion of my finitivity and accepting I am an infinite being. By doing this I will my finite life force (i.e. my consciousness to life for ever). So when my finite body ends, my finite conscientious while a Human will always be a controlling force in my infinite existence.
Accordingly, since I chose to have my present finite life to extend into an infinite life I will try to live this life as a good person who tries to be happy and who tries to make others happy. I invite others to join me. If your goal like me is to have a continual happy existence, please try to make others and yourself happy by doing good acts for others. If you choose this path try to find me in this finite life because these are the type of people I want to be around. If you can’t find me in this life, don’t worry about it. It is more important you find me in our infinite life because in my infinite life I only want to be around positive people who have the prime concern of making others beings happy. Don’t worry I will be easy to find. Even in an infinite world not many infinite beings will have the name of Canice.
Peace.
The Patty Spoke
By the way if you do find me in your infinite existence you also found my definition of heaven. To me heaven is the infinite beings you associate with in your infinite existence. In my infinite existence I choose to be around positive people who want to help ALL other beings.
If you are a negative person that primarily hurts other beings for your own gain I think you will know what you will find. One thing you won’t find is me.
The Patty Spoke.
Matter cannot just pop into existence. Science simply cannot explain where the matter comprising the ‘big bang’ came from. It is essentially the same conundrum; either trying to explain a time when nothing existed, not matter, space or time, or accepting that matter, time and/or space always existed, as equally impossible as that is to comprehend. We cannot comprehend this. It has to be supernatural.
Scientists are also unable to explain such apparent logical absurdities as clocks keeping different time if they are moving or everyone measuring the speed of light the same irrespective of their relative speed or particles altering their behaviour if we look at them. What scientist actually understands what matter bending space to cause gravity means? How do you bend space? The Universe is also supposed to be finite but without boundaries, generally explained by saying it is like the surface of the Earth. In other words, we shouldn´t ask what is on the other side of the boundary. Why not?
At Big Bang, everything was at a point at infinite density. What is infinite density? Quite dense, very dense, incredibly dense – yes, yes – but infinitely dense? What does that mean? And so on…….
But I don´t know that invoking a supernatural creator is going to help much. Many of the same questions will arise with some extra ones thrown in as well.
maybe god put that infinitely small little thing dur and then made it explode
It’s all so easy because Albert got it wrong.
Gravity is not the curvature of space, it’s the push of space.
Dark matter: Space flows towards mass where it’s probability of conversion into energy is improved; a lot of space yields a tiny amount of energy.
Dark energy: When mass is distant, a tiny amount of energy (e. g. starlight) has a higher probability of conversion into space; a tiny amount of energy yields a lot of space.
This unifies the so called gravity with the other three forces. What are we going to do the rest of the afternoon?
G = E = M
Whether Jack´s right or Albert is (or maybe neither), depends on whether Jack´s very own new theory is correct. The books all say that mass “tells” space how to curve and space “tells” mass how to move, but I will be quite glad if Jack´s overturned this now because it all seemed quite improbable to me. How about spending the rest of the afternoon figuring out what came before BB? I don´t believe that the universe appeared all on its own from absolutely nothing.
Maybe a crate of beer will help the process along.
What existed before the BB is exactly the same as what existed after the BB, althugh a bit changed in form. Apparently, the BB erupted from a naked singularity, with the exact mass of our universe including all its space, energy, and matter. There is no way to measure the duration of the singularity, since it existed before time began. Imagine a time line where a singularity existed, time ended when the singularity became naked, then the singularity expanded (BB); time began almost immediately thereafter. Gravity is why this all happened. As all space, matter and energy unify into a singularity, there will come a point when there is no longer any space/gravity to contain the singularity. The singularity is naked and time ends. Since there is nothing holding the naked singularity together, there is a spontaneous expansion (outside of the laws of known physics). The expansion begins when there is no space, thus no gravity, and no speed of light limit, but only the unleashed singularity with all forces unified. Since the very early expansion began outside of space and time, it serves no purpose to consdider the rate of expansion because it increases without limit.
John:
I like your theory.
What causes the “push” of space? It seems to be another force to explain – or is it analogous to pressure? The more space you have within a particular volume, the more pressure it´s under and hence the more it pushes. What draws it to mass, which is presumably what causes gravity – or is this another instance of push? Can it also account for the unvariability of the speed of light and the clocks and action at a distance and particles that change their behaviour because we look at them? If not, it doesn´t matter, because no-one else can account for these things either.
Robert, thanks for the kudos!
The push of space is its attemp to keep space flat. The flatness of space must be nearly constant or bits of the universe would go wandering off. When mass is near, space may be spontaneously converted into its energy equivilent, causing (for lack of a better expression) a “low pressure area” (possibly considered a curvature of space). Space’s attempt to flatten this out with a flow into the low pressure area causes the push that is gravity.
Conversly, when mass in not near, energy may be spontaneously converted into a volume of its equivilent space.
All is neither black nor white. For example, in a galaxy there will be S ==> E and E ==> S conversions. I view this as a quantum uncertainty function where the probability (not certainty) of one or the other occuring depends on the nearness of mass.
I don’t believe there is another force involved in the push of space. The force remains gravity or so called anti-gravity (i.e. dark energy). While it may be possible to temporairly compress space (high pressure area), it would probably not be sustainable. The same is true for a low pressure area.
What would be interesting is the E=MC**2 for E ==> S conversion. It could be approximated from calculations of all the known mass in the universe. Since these calculation seem to come up short, a good percentage of the missing mass may just be the total mass equivilent of all the empty space. Since we know the energy to mass ratio, we could deduce the energy to space ratio. It must be tiny. My SWAG would be E=S/C**2. Energy is equal to a volume of space divided by C**2. Quite symetrical!
If all the above is true, then
1. it unifies gravity with the other three forces,
2. explains the observed increase of spacial expansion,
3. predicts the expansion can not go on forever,
4. predicts FTL travel is possible,
5. predicts that the more massive a space craft, the faster it can travel
6. explains what came before the big bang.
i believe that the big bang was never the beginning the truth is the something has created the universe for some purpose something can not come from nothing and i believe the are many more 2 the universe that we will ever figure out i believe something or some1 created the universe for there own useful tool like a watch or a hammer the key of the universe is water we are mainly water our world is mainly water and i believe the universe is mainly made of water so we should look more into h2o the key is that well this what i think we all have our theories but i know we will never find out the truth the universe is 2 weired 2 figure out and thats the truth .
Zendo:
I hate to argue with you – but the Universe is not mainly made of water. I agree, though, that if mankind – ok, peoplekind – lives another billion years they probably still will not find out definitely how the universe came to exist. All possibilities seem equally bizarre and unlikely.
the point im getting at Robert is they say the universe started from molecules of bubbles but u cant really make bubbles without water my friend so the universe is made of water in my eyes but as i say every 1 has their own thoughts
Zendo: You can have bubbles of lots of things that are not water. Sorry to go on about it, but I´m not sure if you´re saying the universe is mainly made of water seriously or as a joke. If you take the very very beginning, I don´t think there were any molecules yet. Come to think of it, I´m not sure about the bubbles either.
Cosmological observations provide an incredibly rich set of clues to the pre-big bang universe. Do you see any flaws in: The pre-big bank universe at BigCrash.org?
… In the beginning (in the pre-big bang universe) there was only the vast vacuum of space and time. But this vacuum was not sterile, it was seething with vacuum energy. This vacuum energy field permeates and defines the universe, an astronomically large sphere of energy. And just as matter generates gravity by warping space and time, so does energy and this is the force that defines the size and shape of the universe, and also the force that bestows mass on matter…
…When a virtual matter/anti-matter pair becomes a matter matter pair, the virtual particles are no longer able to mutually annihilate and they become real, stealing energy from the vacuum energy of space. This is the mechanism of slow matter creation in the first phase of the pre-big bang universe. Over perhaps a billion billion years, clouds of matter form over the entire universe, and eventually coalesce into cosmological bodies and eventually the first pre-big bang black hole, which starts the second phase of the pre-big bang universe, fast accretion of matter from vacuum energy by black holes…