[Fahrenheit]

I was tempted to put this in the Genius Bar, because I am a genius, but I digress,

Whenever I ponder the beginning of the Universe, I get a sore head. I want to know what there was before the Universe began. Everyone is like all in my face, telling me that nobody has a brain powerful enough to comprehend before "time".

This is why I need your help Chucker.

What was there before the Universe. Nothing just doesn't cut it. There has to have been something...surely. The singular thingy that started the universe must have come from somewhere. Theres no way it just appeared out of nothing, there had to be a way it appeared. But unfortunately whenever I ask myself this, my head hurts. This thread really makes no sense, but I just want to get to the bottom of this - what was there before the universe?

If someone could just answer this quickly when they have a moment, thanks.

[turbulentfurball]

The flying spaghetti monster.

Duh.

[Kickaha]

Nobody knows. By definition, in one current theory, the Big Bang was a singularity point, so *no* information could possibly get from 'before' to 'now'.

Other theories include wacky things like m-branes and such, and do allow for the possibility of bleedover of structure and such, but nobody knows how to possibly work backwards past the Big Snap in that case.

So... it's essentially a black wall.

[Bryson]

It wasn't that there was nothing "before" the Universe. There was no such thing as "before" because time is a part of the Universe.

We live in a world delineated by time, so it's very difficult to conceive of a construct* that doesn't have time included, but in fact this was so. So, there was no "before" the Universe existed in the conventional sense.


* = Not quite the right word. Problem is, our language suggests things like "time" for this word, which is obviously incorrect!

[Banana]

Dunno if I can agree that time is part of "universe"....

To me, universe is in space, and time is independent of it. Furthermore, time has no beginning or ending, whereas universe is bound by a specific point in the time (e.g. Big Bang) up to now.

*shrug*

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Farenheit Whenever I ponder the beginning of the Universe, I get a sore head. I want to know what there was before the Universe began. Everyone is like all in my face, telling me that nobody has a brain powerful enough to comprehend before "time".

There are a few theories, but most people don't seriously study what happened "before" the big bang because it's a field that is generally untestable and unobservable. Here are a few I recall off the top of my head:

• There simply was nothing. Time as we understand it didn't exist; so, using a relative term like "before" doesn't work.
• There was another universe before "our" universe that was undergoing a Big Crunch, the reverse action of the Big Bang.
• There was no single "start" because the Big Bang was like a gravitational singularity and time "bends" with as asymptotic approach to a beginning "moment".

Originally Posted by Farenheit Nothing just doesn't cut it. There has to have been something...surely.

Why?

[Fahrenheit]

Because, you cant just have nothing. Where did this beginning come from. If it just happens, there has to be something to make up the singularity. Did you ever get a cake from no ingrediants?

[Kickaha]

Read about bubble universes. That ought to make your head assplode.

And yes, you *can* have something from nothing. Google 'quantum foam', or 'Hawking radiation'.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Farenheit Because, you cant just have nothing.

Says who?

The laws of physics as we understand them do not apply at the moment of the big bang.

Heck, we still don't fully understand how energy and matter work in today's state of the universe. We have some good guidelines, but there is still far more to learn.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Farenheit This is why I need your help Chucker.

Okay!

[Fahrenheit]

I think the main problem is that I, and most, are grown up and educated "cause and effect" and we/I cant understand anything other than that.

PS: this article makes for good reading for fucktards like me who just dont have a clue what Brad is talking about: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines.../big-bang.html

[Kickaha]

Eh, you'll get over it.

[Bryson]

Originally Posted by Banana Dunno if I can agree that time is part of "universe".... To me, universe is in space, and time is independent of it. Furthermore, time has no beginning or ending, whereas universe is bound by a specific point in the time (e.g. Big Bang) up to now.

I'll be sure to let Mr Einstein and Mr Hawkings know you disagree with them....

[chucker]

Not everything about the Universe is rational and logic. Join a religion or find other ways to deal with it.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Farenheit I think the main problem is that I, and most, are grown up and educated "cause and effect" and we/I cant understand anything other than that.

Exactly.

Would you believe that sometimes an "effect" can "happen" before its "cause"? Do a search for information about tachyons if you want to expand your mind a little on the subject.

"Virtual particles" is another subject you might be interested in reading about.

[Kickaha]

Oh sure, chucker, toss him to the wolves...

Everything *should* be explainable in rational, logical, terms... we may not know yet what those *are*, but we expect that they exist. Punting on that means that you simply accept that there are Things Man Was Not Meant To Know, which is a wonderful trip back to the Dark Ages.

[Windswept]

I read this article earlier today and thought it was pretty interesting:

http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/cli...ysics1004.html

2 Americans share physics prize NEW YORK - Two Americans won the Nobel Prize in physics Tuesday for measuring the oldest light in the heavens, a feat described as "one of the greatest discoveries of the century" that convinced skeptics of the Big-Bang Theory of the universe's origin. George Smoot, 61, of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., and John Mather, 60, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., will share the $1.4 million prize equally for their groundbreaking work. They were the chief architects of a NASA satellite observatory named COBE, for cosmic background explorer. Launched in 1989, the spacecraft measured feeble remnants of light that originated early in the history of the universe, about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Until then, the universe was opaque to light, making it impossible to directly observe anything older. Smoot and Mather's findings revealed the ancient seeds of stars, galaxies and other celestial objects. "It's the farthest out we can see in the universe, and it's the furthest back in time," said Phillip Schewe, a spokesman for the American Institute of Physics. The Big-Bang Theory predicts that this primordial light should display a classic "blackbody" spectrum, an indicator that the whole universe started out at a uniform temperature before expanding into the much less homogeneous state we now observe. That is exactly what COBE found. "It's just a magnificent verification of the Big Bang," said Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. The measurements also revealed tiny ripples in the light's intensity, representing "lumps" no more than 0.001 percent richer in matter than the space around them. From those humble origins arose massive galaxies and galactic superclusters hundreds of millions of light-years across. In announcing the prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences noted that life itself depends on the existence of those tiny fluctuations, because without them matter would be spread uniformly and thinly throughout space. When Mather and Smoot presented their observations at a 1992 physics meeting, "there was an audible gasp in the hall," Schewe said.

I love the 'audible gasp' thing.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Everything *should* be explainable in rational, logical, terms...

"Should"? Maybe. "Is"? That's a whole other question.

we may not know yet what those *are*, but we expect that they exist. Punting on that means that you simply accept that there are Things Man Was Not Meant To Know, which is a wonderful trip back to the Dark Ages.

"Things Man Was Not Meant To Know" is ivory-tower, sure, but so is "We're Human! We're powerful! We're better! We understand ewwarifink!"

I'm happy with the progress science has made and continues to make, but I'm also okay with the fact that there's things we don't know, probably won't know within my lifetime, and perhaps never will.

[billybobsky]

1) The big bang is a creation myth.

2) We don't need no stinkin' creation myth.

3) An empty universe is a extremely low entropy system. (edit: read high free energy)

4) Spontaneous formation of matter in an empty verse will in a sense set fire to the rest of the verse. Light traveling through empty space will precipitate the turn over of empty space into physical space (particles and such).

5) Nothing is Something.

This is my theory.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by chucker "Should"? Maybe. "Is"? That's a whole other question.

Indeed, but it's one that is not provable *until* we know everything, so... it's a working hypothesis that has worked damned well so far.

"Things Man Was Not Meant To Know" is ivory-tower, sure, but so is "We're Human! We're powerful! We're better! We understand ewwarifink!"

No one said we understand everything. We don't, obviously. We just think that maybe, some day, we could deduce the underlying laws of physics and nature such that they do explain all observable phenomenon. That day is a long ways off, of course.

I'm happy with the progress science has made and continues to make, but I'm also okay with the fact that there's things we don't know, probably won't know within my lifetime, and perhaps never will.

Yes, yes, and maybe.

[Fahrenheit]

Wo, wo , wo , wo...

My head hurts.

[Kickaha]

We ain't even gotten started yet, kid.

[Fahrenheit]

Way to completely evade a question:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=364

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Indeed, but it's one that is not provable *until* we know everything, so... it's a working hypothesis that has worked damned well so far.

Yes, I agree.

No one said we understand everything. We don't, obviously. We just think that maybe, some day, we could deduce the underlying laws of physics and nature such that they do explain all observable phenomenon. That day is a long ways off, of course.

Sure. I'm just troubled by the strange idea that everything must make sense in a way. What if there's simply aspects beyond our understanding, or at least our current understanding? What if it takes completely different approaches that we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of?

So I think the short answer to Farenheit's original question is: we don't have the slightest clue. There's a few very vague theories, but nothing beyond that.

[Kickaha]

Actually, that was dead on precise, and says what we've been saying in here.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by chucker Sure. I'm just troubled by the strange idea that everything must make sense in a way. What if there's simply aspects beyond our understanding, or at least our current understanding?

Current is the operative word there. I expect that we'll continually keep investigating, and getting a better grip on what's going on. At that point, we'll understand more, and then go for the next nugget we haven't figured out.

What if it takes completely different approaches that we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of?

Happens all the time! Phlogiston, anyone? Ether? The last century has seen *massive* overturning of 'basic' understanding of the fundamentals of physics, biology, chemistry... you name it. That will continue.

So I think the short answer to Farenheit's original question is: we don't have the slightest clue. There's a few very vague theories, but nothing beyond that.

Bingo.

[Banana]

Which brings us to another related question-

How do we know when a question is unknowable? Can we know that something cannot be knew and never will be known?

[Kickaha]

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Google it, mutherfucka.

[blakbyrd]

*Googles*

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Kickaha The last century has seen *massive* overturning of 'basic' understanding of the fundamentals of physics, biology, chemistry... you name it. That will continue.

Funny enough, I was originally going to put that in my post.

Originally Posted by Banana Which brings us to another related question- How do we know when a question is unknowable? Can we know that something cannot be knew and never will be known?

Who knows!