Before the Big Bang?

tomgee wrote:
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!).

We probably cannot visualize it, but we can investigate the Big Bang
mathematically, which has the advantage of being both more precise and
less constrained by human imagination. For instance, humans generally
cannot visualize/imagine a curved 2-manifold without it being embedded
in 3-space, but it has been known at least since the time of Poincare
(maybe a bit earlier) that there exist consistent geometries in which no
embedding is necessary.

In other words, you might be able to (in principle) measure the angles
of a triangle on an apparently flat surface, and find that they don't
add up to 180 degrees, thus demonstrating that the surface is curved in
a metric sense, even though there's no third dimension for it to curve
"into."

Similarly, you can have a 4-manifold of space-time without it being
embedded in some external space. That means that one can talk about the
Big Bang without having to place it into a larger context. The Big Bang
is then essentially a boundary condition; it can be validated by seeing
if what we observe can be extrapolated back in (our thread of) time to
that boundary, without worrying about what, if anything, set up the
boundary conditions.

There are, nonetheless, some theories about broader contexts in which
our universe might be embedded. These are not really all *that* recent;
I think Andrei Linde began proposing one maybe 15 years or so ago? Such
theories make predictions about the possible ranges of physical
"constants" (put in quotes because in these theories, they have a
distribution function rather than a fixed value); if our observations
showed that the constants held values outside of the ranges permitted by
these theories, they would be falsified. Thus far, they have not been,
but that should not give us that much confidence in them, because the
ranges are not small.

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.

No. They are questioned, but the questions are posed mathematically,
so that they aren't hazy by virtue of the ambiguous English (or any
other human) language. Some of your questions are, as I have noted, not
strictly required by a theory of the Big Bang proper.

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.

It is not that they explicitly claim that space didn't exist before the
Big Bang, or that it doesn't exist external to our universe, or both.
More accurately, the conventional theories are silent on that matter.
They do not *require* space or time to exist outside our universe, but
they do not preclude it, either. It is not their primary concern; they
are concerned more with how space and time evolve, and with pushing the
boundary of our understanding back toward the Big Bang.

My theory is the only one, AFAIK,
that contends abs. space exists outside the universe.

Properly speaking, you have an idea, not a theory. It is not unique;
consider Linde's chaotic inflationary theory. There is also an
oscillating theory that has some problems with it. Nonetheless, the
theory exists.

Note also that we can *say* the oscillating theory has some problems
with it. That means that it makes predictions that can be falsified by
observations. That makes it different from nearly all ideas posed by
amateur cosmologists. Common sense is a reasonable way to arrive at
hypotheses, but it is not useful for divining what is actually so. If
it were, we would never have accepted quantum mechanics. Anyone who
says that QM makes intuitive sense doesn't know enough about it. But QM
tells us that observations based on a given set of initial conditions
will have a predictable probability distribution, and when we make those
observations, lo and behold, the results fit that distribution. That is
why we have confidence in QM, despite its counter-intuitiveness. That
predictive power is what is required of any scientific hypothesis, and
the various "multiversal" theories have some of that, albeit weakly thus
far.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Sco wrote:
From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there was
energy.

Somewhat counter-intuitively, energy is not well-defined for space-times
that aren't asymptotically flat--a condition not satisfied by the Big
Bang. Therefore, conservation of energy cannot be applied consistently
to the Big Bang.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Sco" wrote in message
news
From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there
was energy.

In most models, the gravitational potential
energy is equal and opposite to the matter
and other forms hence the prior total was
zero.

"Uno" wrote in message
...
Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter.

Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in
magnitude to the total energy contained in both
matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic
energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the
gravitational energy is negative, the total is
zero.

George

"Pat O'Connell" wrote in message
. ..
George Dishman wrote:
....
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?

Last time I saw anything from him, the grammar was
reasonable, it was the content that was crap. There
have recently been some replies to my posts (and
possibly others) which with a bit of digging were
made up from phrases snipped from other posters'
replies to me. The first "Ouahi" reply was OK but
subsequent ones seem to be constructed of random
phrases. My guess is it is another attempt at the
Turing Test. Usenet is a perfect medium for these
programs.

George

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi:

What happened before the big bang?



Energy..lots and lots of pure essential energy.

Mr Manipulable!

Only and only the thing, you would never and ever, guess, is what is your
level along the fear further would be, because, already as a systematically,
your behaviors is exactly, the same as under any doctrine of a socialism,
simply as that, the absolute reason, that your kind are an infinite matter,
a definitely as a matter a fact!

However, in an either case, you are in an absolute as an urgent need of a
professional help, the way, that they -under that kind of a doctrine- are
doing to all your kind, a definitely as a matter a fact!

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Simply As That!



"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Pat O'Connell" wrote in message
. ..
George Dishman wrote:
...
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?

Last time I saw anything from him, the grammar was
reasonable, it was the content that was crap. There
have recently been some replies to my posts (and
possibly others) which with a bit of digging were
made up from phrases snipped from other posters'
replies to me. The first "Ouahi" reply was OK but
subsequent ones seem to be constructed of random
phrases. My guess is it is another attempt at the
Turing Test. Usenet is a perfect medium for these
programs.

George

Mr English!

English!?... Does it belongs to your mother, whether, what about yours, or
you do a just see an Arab, with an extremelly great visions than ever you
could get in your existence, no matter what you would try, because, it is a
very simple, Arabs, they have had learned you everything, and shows to all
of you, what the life is all about, no matter the way, you are a definitely
trying to turn the human minds, along your stupidity.

However, do you see, in the meantime, how and the way, that the things are
so simple, to skip any psychological problem!?

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Think About That!

"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

My version of the BBT would have no Inflationary
Period (I.P.) to it as it is not needed because to me, it is
more reasonable to assume that all the contents of the
BB had plenty of time to be spread out into the universe
in as homogeneous a manner as they are today, than to
believe in the I.P. concept.

During the initial part of the BB, the contents of the
singularity were being pushed out of it at a time when
matter did not exist. Then, the process was occurring
external to the time dimension, so it was happening
without the passage of time. By our standards, it took
at least the amount of time needed to distribute the
non-matter contents homogeneously out of the 14 or
so billion years of the existence of the universe.

IOW, it took no time at all to do that, and so no I.P. is
needed to explain how the contents of the BB were so
well distributed by the time the universe cooled enough
for the contents to begin to coalesce into matter
particles. The same for the ultra-rare monopole,
wherever the poor thing went to....

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.

He did at first note that his English was not good, so it
could just be that. If it is a bot, it's a very good one, I
think.

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hi:

What happened before the big bang?

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

Troll-o-Meter:

-----------------
| | | | | | | | | |

Regards,

Radium
--
Ioannis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/

"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" wrote in message
...
Mr English!

English!?... Does it belongs to your mother, whether, what about yours,
or
you do a just see an Arab, ...

Whether you are an Arab or not is not of the slightest
concern to me, if you are curious about astronomy or
cosmology then we share that interest and I will be
_delighted_ to discuss those subjects with you.

... with an extremelly great visions than ever you
could get in your existence, no matter what you would try, because, it is
a
very simple, Arabs, they have had learned you everything, and shows to all
of you, what the life is all about, no matter the way, you are a
definitely
trying to turn the human minds, along your stupidity.

However, do you see, in the meantime, how and the way, that the things are
so simple, to skip any psychological problem!?

If you want to discuss astronomy, cosmology or nucleogenesis
(or abiogenesis as it is relevant to this thread) then I
will be happy to do so. As it is there is nothing on any of
those topics or anything else of relevance to this astronomy
group in what you have written above.

George

"Ioannis" wrote in message
news:1158001258.528482@athprx04...
"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hi:

What happened before the big bang?

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

Troll-o-Meter:

-----------------
| | | | | | | | | |

For those interested in a serious look at the question:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301199

George