Before the Big Bang

[Nemiroff]

What came before the big bang? Was it God? Other universes outside of ours? A multiverse of quantum foam?

I personally like the whole big bang big crunch cycle, where our universe, born from a big bang eventually collapses on its own gravity and falls back in a big crunch with tremendous pressure that causes an explosion...another big bang

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Nemiroff What came before the big bang? Was it God? Other universes outside of ours? A multiverse of quantum foam?

Your questions fall outside the scope of science - which is limited strictly to the natural realm and that which can be explained through naturalism.

[Nemiroff]

theoretical physcis is considered science, and so are quantum mechanics, this falls somewhere in between those two

[rez]

Quote by: Chancellor Your questions fall outside the scope of science - which is limited strictly to the natural realm and that which can be explained through naturalism.

Damn I wish I could use that reasoning for all the other things in my life. Although I would be a mindless zombie, everything would be soo much easier.

[Jack]

"Falling outside the scope of science" would be relevant only if the creation of the universe were known to be an unnatural event. Since there's no reason to suppose that it occurred due to supernatural forces, investigating it by natural means (science, specifically physics and cosmology) is quite reasonable.

[nerdvincent]

Big Bang is, according to the theory, the begining of space and time, so the notion of "before BB" is like saying "colder than O Kelvin".

[Nemiroff]

Our time is intrevined with our space, but that doesn't mean there wasn't another universe with its own space-time. Also there is the quantum foam theory where the multiverse is a giant quantum foam that's always bubbling, each bubble is its own universe with it's own sense of time. Just cause something was "before" the big bang or caused the big bang, doesn't mean it stopped existing after the bang

[Athena]

Quote by: Chancellor Your questions fall outside the scope of science - which is limited strictly to the natural realm and that which can be explained through naturalism.

Ah, may be by your diffinition, String theory stands outside of the scope of science, but this train of thought suggest there was chaos before there was order.

I wish I could remember where I came across this idea- The sub atomic particles all spun to the right. Then sponateiously one spun to the left, and all that is manifest came into being. It was not manifest in its present from which is evolved, but the process of union and form was begun. It frustrates the hell out of me, to be unable to find the source of this thought. May be someone can point me in the right direction?

[Athena]

Quote by: rez Damn I wish I could use that reasoning for all the other things in my life. Although I would be a mindless zombie, everything would be soo much easier.

, that is very funny. I can so appreciate the sentiment.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Isherwood "Falling outside the scope of science" would be relevant only if the creation of the universe were known to be an unnatural event. Since there's no reason to suppose that it occurred due to supernatural forces, investigating it by natural means (science, specifically physics and cosmology) is quite reasonable.

Falling outside the scope of science as in it isn't something that can be observed, tested and replicated.

[rez]

Quote by: Chancellor Falling outside the scope of science as in it isn't something that can be observed, tested and replicated.

Something can be observed directly and indirectly. Provide supporting evidence that anything before the big bang can not be tested and replicated...

If it is real, then science will explain it. If it is imagined then let religion and philosophy deal with it.

[pho3]

to answer the first question, theres no point asking what came before time, cause theres nothing before an absolute start, and theres not really a point asking it, it wont affect us in anyway, theres no causality, an act of no consequence

[Nemiroff]

So you are saying that before this space time. There couldn't be any other universe's with their own space-time? You have to take my use of time with a grain of salt. I know I can't say a decade or millenia, but let's say it existed before the big bang, or hypothetically, it was already in existence outside the big bang when the bang happened. You can't compare it to our time, but space and time are one. Just cause something is outside our space-time doesn't mean it can't exist.

Also, the concept of space wasn't science at one point let alone visiting it. But its very common now. Yes we can't study or observe it, but we have to try. That is the purest form of science, before you study you must first discover. Dismissing the topic just cause you can't observe it right now is just being lazy

[pho3]

Quote by: Nemiroff So you are saying that before this space time. There couldn't be any other universe's with their own space-time? You have to take my use of time with a grain of salt. I know I can't say a decade or millenia, but let's say it existed before the big bang, or hypothetically, it was already in existence outside the big bang when the bang happened. You can't compare it to our time, but space and time are one. Just cause something is outside our space-time doesn't mean it can't exist. Also, the concept of space wasn't science at one point let alone visiting it. But its very common now. Yes we can't study or observe it, but we have to try. That is the purest form of science, before you study you must first discover. Dismissing the topic just cause you can't observe it right now is just being lazy

lets consider the concept of big bang as an absolute start of everything. and by everything we are assuming theres nothing outside of it. why do we go on assuming sth exists when the odds of it not existing are significantly greater than it does? well of course i am not saying we should eliminate that 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent of sth existing but 'existence' means evidence from measurements, if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist.

[Athena]

More then one universe.

Scienceline » What existed before the Big Bang? 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.

[Nemiroff]

Pho 3: you sound almost certain there is nothing outside our universe, but you haven't shown any proof. We may not be able to observe anything outside our universe, but we can't even observe the ends of our universe, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, we just aren't good enough yet. And we can still detect it indirectly or prove it with math (which I believe the already did)

[pho3]

Quote by: Nemiroff Pho 3: you sound almost certain there is nothing outside our universe, but you haven't shown any proof. We may not be able to observe anything outside our universe, but we can't even observe the ends of our universe, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, we just aren't good enough yet. And we can still detect it indirectly or prove it with math (which I believe the already did)

no,i am not certain that theres absolutely nothing outside of our universe, but my proof that i believe theres nothing out of it is the fact that you cant prove there is. we have been brainwashed since the days we were born, with all these absurd theories, i believe in relativity, but big bang is certainly too absurd, every heard of a constructive bang? the only way i will believe something is through experiment and solid proof. if in a lab they bang sth and create something out of it then yeh...yes open our eyes to new possibilities, but somehow i think physics is on the wrong track. for now this very moment, i choose not to believe in the big bang.

[Nemiroff]

Unfortunately many of the secrets of the universe we cannot experiment with our current technology, but such limitations have been overcome before. But they are the BEST available theory, and it is mathematically proven, so wether it is real or not, it is very possible.

Btw, gravity, inertia, even the THEORY of relativity, which you claim to support, has been supported by experimentation, but never actually proven.
Also the big bang is the only theory that was able to explain why all the galaxies are moving apart, and the background radiation (the dim everpresent after shock of the big bang)

[Century 25]

Eventually we may get a better idea of what may be beyond our universe. There seems to be no reason why if "space" is infinite.. there may be other "universes" scattered across infinity. A "universe" as we think we know it.. is really an "event" - so it has a beginning, an end and then "time" is the place where the action is. So, how many "universes" are occurring at this "moment" in time.. so to speak..? We don't know.. yet. Maybe never will know. It is fun to speculate though, make.. ha-ha.. "educated" guesses..

You may enjoy this site: Stephen Hawking's Universe

Here is another little bit of cheer.. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Universe is 'doomed to collapse'

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: pho3 to answer the first question, theres no point asking what came before time, cause theres nothing before an absolute start, and theres not really a point asking it, it wont affect us in anyway, theres no causality, an act of no consequence

You can't see back before the Big Bang.. but you can detect things that may have started it such as looking at forces like gravity.