Before the Big Bang?

tomgee wrote:
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.

Much of what physics has discovered about the nature of our universe is
counterintuitive, including relativity, which obviously is correct or
atomic weapons, nuclear reactors, and star wouldn't work. The same is
true for quantum mechanics.

Prof. Michio Kaku's book "Parallel Worlds" is a fairly decent/readable
explanation for non-physicists of the history of physics and cosmology,
including why multiverses can, and probably do, exist. The book was
copyrighted in 2005, and changes to our knowledge of cosmology have
happened since that book was written.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

tomgee wrote:
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?

No, all matter was created within the first second
but it was in the form of sub-atomic particles for
the first few minutes. The elements formed over a
few hours as neutron were captured by protons but
it was then in the form of plasma at millions of
degrees, similar to the core of the Sun. The mix
was about 76% hydrogen and 24% helium with a tiny
amount of lithum.

It was about 378,000 years later that the plasma
cooled enough for electrons to become associated
with atoms.

The charts here show the timescale and
temperatures during nucleosynthesis:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html

The creation of matter is called baryogenesis but
we know very little about how that occurred.

Incidentally I suspect the later messages from
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" may be generated
programmatically, their structure is similar to
some other AI robots that have been set up to
post here recently.

George

George Dishman wrote:
tomgee wrote:
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?

No, all matter was created within the first second
but it was in the form of sub-atomic particles for
the first few minutes. The elements formed over a
few hours as neutron were captured by protons but
it was then in the form of plasma at millions of
degrees, similar to the core of the Sun. The mix
was about 76% hydrogen and 24% helium with a tiny
amount of lithum.

It was about 378,000 years later that the plasma
cooled enough for electrons to become associated
with atoms.

The charts here show the timescale and
temperatures during nucleosynthesis:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html

The creation of matter is called baryogenesis but
we know very little about how that occurred.

Incidentally I suspect the later messages from
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" may be generated
programmatically, their structure is similar to
some other AI robots that have been set up to
post here recently.

You mean like Min?

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think
it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists
here, than for another universe to exist without time.

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).

No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know
of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it
compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine
can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter,
yes, but just how do you compress space? And how much
space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space
to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are
not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a
thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded
to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!).

The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of
the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the
awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel.

I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed
before the BB nor exists external to our universe. If you have,
as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK,
that contends abs. space exists outside the universe.

The fact that this is hard for us to grasp non-mathematically
is not an argument against it.

It's not hard for me. I can spot naked emperors miles away.

Some theories seek to explain the cause of the BB.

Not true, AFAIK. There may be many stories dealing with
the subject, but they would be no more than concepts born
of imagination and nurtured as commercial enterprises.

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.

You claim to be a physicist and you think they are testable and
falsifiable? That is impossible, friend, unless you know
something about that no one else knows.

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.

It's better than assuming it can only happen here and nowhere else!
And note that I was not saying it seems "natural", I said it is
intuition
that follows logically from what already exists or has occurred. It
is more reasonable to believe that since our universe exists, others
could also exist, than to say "Our universe exists, but no others
exist".

However, as what I am seeing so far, you are a definitely full of a hate and
a jealousy to anyone, means a simply, that a mind misery of yours, has had
already terminated you, whether, it would still in you, and also, that you
are a full of an useless energy, which is expressed, along that hate as
along an emptiness of your own mind, all along.

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Now- Think Again!


"George Dishman" wrote in message
ups.com...
tomgee wrote:
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?

No, all matter was created within the first second
but it was in the form of sub-atomic particles for
the first few minutes. The elements formed over a
few hours as neutron were captured by protons but
it was then in the form of plasma at millions of
degrees, similar to the core of the Sun. The mix
was about 76% hydrogen and 24% helium with a tiny
amount of lithum.

It was about 378,000 years later that the plasma
cooled enough for electrons to become associated
with atoms.

The charts here show the timescale and
temperatures during nucleosynthesis:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html

The creation of matter is called baryogenesis but
we know very little about how that occurred.

Incidentally I suspect the later messages from
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" may be generated
programmatically, their structure is similar to
some other AI robots that have been set up to
post here recently.

George

"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...
Chris L Peterson wrote:
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,

No. We don't know that it did. You are correct that time is
a property of the universe, but as such, it is a dimension no
different than the other 3 dimensions that define physical
quantities of objects. Where there are no objects, the four
dimensions cannot apply (except, of course, in our minds).

How does a dimension "pass" as you say it does? How would you express
that in terms of a rate?

The physical quantity defined by the time dimension applies
to "events", which are defined as single points in space and
time. However, since in reality it can only apply to objects,
we can say that the 4 dimensions are properties of our
universe that apply only to discrete objects. The inference
to be drawn here is that space does not age.

If so, then space could have existed before the BB, as
absolute space, completely empty and timeless. The BBT
has space emptying out from it to define our universe,

Where does the BBT say that?

there
having been nothing, not space nor anything else, previous
to the BB. Of course, in that scenario, the BB evolved from
one stage to another in a process that ended in the BB. It
makes no sense to say that process occurred where there
was no space or anything else. The common explanation
is that the BB occurred in a so-called Great Void, an endless
expanse of what? - Nothingness, theysay.

How does the Great Void differ from space?

That is all nonsense, of course.

As is everything else you write.

Radium wrote:
Hi:

What happened before the big bang?

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



Regards,

Radium

My a favourite theory is that the prior universe had collapsed in upon
itself, like a big ol' black hole and then exploded. This is a
cyclical thing.

tomgee wrote:

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.

Tom, most of the world gave up intuitive science around 1880.
Get with the program.


Shawn

On 11 Sep 2006 09:20:06 -0700, "tomgee" wrote:

No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know
of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it
compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine
can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter,
yes, but just how do you compress space? And how much
space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space
to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are
not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a
thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded
to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!).

I'm sorry your imagination is so limited. The simple fact is that these
things aren't beyond human comprehension, and for those who have spent
some time studying cosmology, they aren't as hard to imagine as you
suppose. And there are many BB theories.


You claim to be a physicist and you think they are testable and
falsifiable? That is impossible, friend, unless you know
something about that no one else knows.

I know what makes a theory, and I'm hardly the only one! And there are
theories that go beyond the BB (branes, for example) that can be tested
by observation and that can be falsified. That makes them valid
theories. Any theory that doesn't meet that criteria, however, is just
so much mental masturbation.

_________________________________________________

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

tomgee wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think
it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists
here, than for another universe to exist without time.

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).

No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know
of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it
compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine
can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter,
yes, but just how do you compress space?

That's precisely what the Einstein field equations tell you -- what the
relationship is between the curvature of space and time and the mass &
energy in that space. The two go hand in hand. The more mass and
energy, then the more tightly curved the space is. The asymptote of
that process is a singularity, both in terms of the density of mass and
energy, and in terms of the curvature of spacetime.

And how much
space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space
to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are
not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a
thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded
to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!).

The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of
the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the
awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel.

I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed
before the BB nor exists external to our universe.

That's because your reading is quite limited.

If you have,
as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK,
that contends abs. space exists outside the universe.

The fact that this is hard for us to grasp non-mathematically
is not an argument against it.

It's not hard for me. I can spot naked emperors miles away.

Some theories seek to explain the cause of the BB.

Not true, AFAIK. There may be many stories dealing with
the subject, but they would be no more than concepts born
of imagination and nurtured as commercial enterprises.

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.

You claim to be a physicist and you think they are testable and
falsifiable? That is impossible, friend, unless you know
something about that no one else knows.

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.

It's better than assuming it can only happen here and nowhere else!
And note that I was not saying it seems "natural", I said it is
intuition
that follows logically from what already exists or has occurred. It
is more reasonable to believe that since our universe exists, others
could also exist, than to say "Our universe exists, but no others
exist".