Before the Big Bang?

Davoud wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:

Something like this question may be answerable.

I hope so!

Time is a property of
our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of
"before" isn't easily defined.

Hmmmm. My reading and listening tell me that it is not known if time
began at the BB, or if time existed prior to the BB and the BB was an
event that occurred at a certain point in time. Tough question, but
perhaps answerable one day.

Davoud

Astute observations on your part! See my post to Chris. - Tomgee
--
usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com

Radium wrote:
Davoud wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:

Something like this question may be answerable.

I hope so!

Time is a property of
our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of
"before" isn't easily defined.


Hmmmm. My reading and listening tell me that it is not known if time
began at the BB, or if time existed prior to the BB and the BB was an
event that occurred at a certain point in time. Tough question, but
perhaps answerable one day.

For some reason [that I can't figure out myself], I believe that time
did exist before the BB and that BB was as you say "an event that
occurred at a certain point in time".

The reason is intuitive, as opposed to the counterintuitive claim that
time began with our universe. Trust your common sense, and read
my posts to Chris and Davoud.

AFAIK, the BB was the most major event known to science, however it
does not mean that BB was the start of time.

It just so happens that we [scientists] haven't discovered anything
prior to the big bang.

I agree. An explosion evolves, requiring the passage of time.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 10 Sep 2006 15:29:51 -0700, "Radium" wrote:

AFAIK, the BB was the most major event known to science, however it
does not mean that BB was the start of time.

It just so happens that we [scientists] haven't discovered anything
prior to the big bang.

That's not true.

No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet,
unless you know about something that has been discovered as such.

Everything we know about physics breaks down very close
to the BB, including time.

Okay, but that is after, not before.

Time is generally seen as a component of our
universe just as the spatial dimensions are.

Yes, you're right.

It really makes no sense to
consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than
it makes sense to consider space as having existed.

On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really
makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe.

It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere
and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time
would exist as well.

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" wrote:

Hi:

What happened before the big bang?

Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.

Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of
our universe,

It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe!

Sorry, but he's right. See my first post to him.

Therefore, mostly what you would need to practice you, especially, it would
be something called to Know, because, only and only the thing, that, has had
not been existing in that time, it is the English among other languages.

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Think About That!

"George Dishman" wrote in message
oups.com...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" wrote in message
...

So we do not know what the world was like back then
Either way it does not seem very conducive to life

For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang,
all the matter in the universe was in the form of
hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present
surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in
fact not even any form of solid matter.

But there must have been something that suited life
Otherwise we would not be here

Think again.

Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote:
However, what you said, was a just a technically speaking, whether, it
allows to turn around a possible similarity betweem a biolology matter
and
the universe itself, whether, as for instance, any biochemical process
and
extremelly any environmental conditions, as for instance, along their
combinations, which would determine any reactions as any overreaction
along
the universe.

Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere,
along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, ...

No, at the temperatures during that period, molecules
could not exist. In fact even neutral atoms could not
exist. There could be no biochemical processes and
no chemical reactions.

... at least to try to
figure, that it has had been, along that matter, a definitely allowed to
diminish the sun by a just to make it a farther as to allow the
creations to
get, more or less, an appropriate sunlight, for appropriate life as to
allow
a most of anything to be a visible, a definitely as a matter a fact.

P.S- along some cases, the thinking delay the perception!

p.s. I think you need to practice your English!

Mark F. wrote:
God said let there be light.
that is one option.

In Philosophy, yes. In physics, it is not an option, not even a
theory - only a concept, an unsupported opinion.

George Dishman wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" wrote in message
...

So we do not know what the world was like back then
Either way it does not seem very conducive to life

For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang,
all the matter in the universe was in the form of
hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present
surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in
fact not even any form of solid matter.

SNIP

Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere,
along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, ...

No, at the temperatures during that period, molecules
could not exist. In fact even neutral atoms could not
exist. There could be no biochemical processes and
no chemical reactions.

Therefore, aren't you saying there was no matter then?

On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" wrote:

Hi:

What happened before the big bang?

Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.



Regards,

Radium

Even now some serious physicists are going to tackle this with the
help of loop quantum gravity and are getting first answers:

Following result comes from the paper http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0604013
where they calculate the history of the universe back to the bigbang
and reach a collapsing universe "before" the bigbang

"BernardZ" schreef in bericht
news:MPG.1f6fda47ca230e12989b72@news...
In article ,
says...

"Chris L Peterson" schreef in bericht
...
On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" wrote:

Hi:

What happened before the big bang?

Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.

Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of
our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of
"before" isn't easily defined. However, if theory and experiment
ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then
the
_cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood,
even
if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it.

well,
if the universe expands and then contract,then BB again,etc,
then there was a time before,because by contracting the time might go
backwards,yes?
IOW,when space is contracting time must contract too,because it's part
of
spacetime
yes,or is it no?
just a thought,

Probably not.

Spacetime is contracting in a black hole yet time is going forward.

yes ,that thought of me was indeed probably not a just thought,
and indeed if the universe goes into contraction after expanding,eventually
it ends up in a enormous black hole,right,
and time stands stll there or almost (relatively)
but it indeed does'nt go backwards

marten


marten

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com




--
The people that believe that the world is flat are proof that heaps of
time, huge amounts of scientific evidence, plenty of eyewitness
accounts, numerous experts opinion and mountains of photographs are not
enough to convince some people! What is particularly frustrating is
that there are many such people on the Usenet.

Observations of Bernard - No 104

On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" wrote:

No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet,
unless you know about something that has been discovered as such.

Everything we know about physics breaks down very close
to the BB, including time.

Okay, but that is after, not before.

Time is generally seen as a component of our
universe just as the spatial dimensions are.

Yes, you're right.

It really makes no sense to
consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than
it makes sense to consider space as having existed.

On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really
makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe.

It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere
and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time
would exist as well.

These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There
is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe. Right
now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time
were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that
indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the
universe). The fact that this is hard for us to grasp non-mathematically
is not an argument against it.

Some theories seek to explain the cause of the BB. While these may be
valid theories in the sense that they are testable and falsifiable, they
are also very weakly supported at the moment- more in the mode of
mathematical games than anything else. I'm not aware of any that require
time to have existed before the BB, or even that there was a "before" in
the sense I think it is being discussed here. There is no need for a
hyperuniverse in which ours formed to contain dimensions that we would
recognize as either spatial or temporal (that doesn't mean it couldn't,
just that there is no basis for assuming such).

Assuming things in this realm of physics simply because it seems natural
is very bad reasoning.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com