Nothing. Time, space or dimension did not exist. Everything was created in the big banq. As time and space coexist coherently (they are part of each other really), so did matter and anti matter. Now because matter and anti matter are quite explosive in proximity to each other, they exploded. Seemly this may create a paradox, until you look at matter as +1 and anti matter as -1. Add them together as say +50,000,000 + -50,000,000 then you still get 0 which is nothing. But as soon as you get an imbalance say +50,000,000 + -49,999,999.9999999999999999999 things go completely pear shaped and created a cosmos. Therefore, because explosions take time and there was no time, and the matter and anti matter were equally in balance in a minute area together, lasting for infinatey. So the question is not what created the big bang, but what created the inbalance. Incidently if the equation was +49,999,999.999999999999999 + -50,000,000 then the stuff of the universe would be anti matter. This is not to say there is a reverse universe currently made up of anti matter. All antimatter was destroyed in the big bang so none exists in the natural cosmos, although scientists have created it on purpose in a lab, in the late 90's. Thats how we know it exists.

Eh

I'll get mi coat

the current belief is that it wasn't a big bang, more of a middle scale hum. again i say , all we need to know is that space is big

dont believe in the big bang.......

I say it's irrelevant, as whatever happened didn't happen whilst I was around... but fair enough, that sounds like a good explanation.

Originally posted by dontaskme
Nothing. Time, space or dimension did not exist. Everything was created in the big banq. As time and space coexist coherently (they are part of each other really), so did matter and anti matter. Now because matter and anti matter are quite explosive in proximity to each other, they exploded. Seemly this may create a paradox, until you look at matter as +1 and anti matter as -1. Add them together as say +50,000,000 + -50,000,000 then you still get 0 which is nothing. But as soon as you get an imbalance say +50,000,000 + -49,999,999.9999999999999999999 things go completely pear shaped and created a cosmos. Therefore, because explosions take time and there was no time, and the matter and anti matter were equally in balance in a minute area together, lasting for infinatey. So the question is not what created the big bang, but what created the inbalance. Incidently if the equation was +49,999,999.999999999999999 + -50,000,000 then the stuff of the universe would be anti matter. This is not to say there is a reverse universe currently made up of anti matter. All antimatter was destroyed in the big bang so none exists in the natural cosmos, although scientists have created it on purpose in a lab, in the late 90's. Thats how we know it exists.

GOBBLDEGOOK!!!

My God. One of those threads, again. I really don't know. I guess the only person who knows is the man with beard. Perhaps he lit the fuse.

But then again, there wouldn't have been anything before that!

Argh!!!!

Couldn't creating anti-matter be potentially catastrophic if it came in contact with matter?

Also, I don't understand how there could have been nothing in exsistance before space and time, for two reasons. Firstly, where is space (the universe)? And secondly, at some point in time, time must have began, which is a fairly paradoxical statement.

found this:
We can define the universe as everything there is, so in that case there is nothing outside of it. We also say that space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it.

Another definition for the universe is the observable universe - which is the part of it that we can technically see. We cannot know what is outside of that (since we can't observe it), but we think that physics works the same everywhere and so we think that it should be very similar to the observable universe. We actually think that the universe might be infinite in extent, and so goes on forever, even though we can only see a finite part of it.

We can speculate in meta-physics or in religion about what was before the Big Bang, but again, we cannot use science to tell anything about it as physics as we understand it breaks down at that point.

Cheers Phan. So in reality, you cannot say there was 'nothing' before the Big Bang, becuase there may have been, except it cannot be identified by science.

Time is infinite, so in theory time didn't start and won't end.

Time is just another dimension, just like length and depth.

There are too many dimensions to think about now, if you think there is any truth to string theory anyway.

Wilf

I love these kind of discussions ...

Perhaps 'forever' is no time at all and every point in space-time is infact equivalent to every 'other' point in space-time.

Infact ... isn't this also a modern scientitific idea !?

Kinda like the electron beam inside your PC monitor (or TV) ... it moves at such a speed lighting up the RGB phosporus creating the illusion that there are seperate pixels on your screen ... when all along there is only one beam of light.

Only in the realm of human perception that there is differenciation ... is the universe not the same !?

In the known visible universe size is all relative ... we can say one thing is twice or 1,000,000 times as long as another thing ... but if we compared the known visible universe to a fish bowl and if we could see it from the outside ... would it be infinately big or infinately small !? Or both !?

I'm going to say this in the kindest way

does anyone really care!?!? :P

Originally posted by Jamie
I love these kind of discussions ...

Perhaps 'forever' is no time at all and every point in space-time is infact equivalent to every 'other' point in space-time.

Infact ... isn't this also a modern scientitific idea !?

yep, it's called the 'Steady State' theory, developed in the mid 20th century. And guess what people, I have an AS exam on 'Creation and the Origins of the Universe' on Friday. Thank you!

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

Another definition for the universe is the observable universe - which is the part of it that we can technically see. We cannot know what is outside of that (since we can't observe it), but we think that physics works the same everywhere and so we think that it should be very similar to the observable universe.

Yep...so there's no denying there could be a God, because if there was and it existed outside of our universe then we wouldn't be able to comprehend it. We exist within this universe, and recent theories showing the possible creation (through 'Big Bang' type occurences from the waves from quarks...my Dad knows, I'm just putting down some research he read!) of new ones at sub-sub atomic levels mean that maybe there could be a different God for each one, or we could be a failed attempt, or many other things.

Personally I feel it is far too short sighted to say 'there couldn't be nothing before the big bang' or 'there's got to be something outside the universe'. the whole point is that these things are incomprehendable. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Originally posted by t020
Time is infinite, so in theory time didn't start and won't end.

But time is relative to any individual particle. (see time travel thread). so if time is limited to the existence and actions of the matter around it, then if there was nothing before the big bang, then there was no time. If there was something before the big bang, it would surely bear no resemblance to our universe. Therefore time (if it existed in any form pre big bang), could not be compared to time as we know it. No one can say whether time is infinite or not.

twelve pints of Guinness and a Madras.

Originally posted by bulldog D
twelve pints of Guinness and a Madras.

this mans got the idea ;)

I've actually worked out what existed before the 'Big Bang'. It came to me when I woke up this morning. It was the 'Long, black silent nothingness'.

I'm registering that as official.

Originally posted by ianmitchell
I'm going to say this in the kindest way

does anyone really care!?!? :P Listen to this guy, he's got the right idea.

Why bother finding it out? What good will it do us to know?

Originally posted by Moonolt
Listen to this guy, he's got the right idea.

Why bother finding it out? What good will it do us to know?

great answer. I can just see all those pivotal moments in history:

Punter:Is the world at the centre of the universe
Copernicus:Why bother finding it out? What good will it do us to know?

Punter: Are time and space the same thing?
Einstein: Why bother finding it out? What good will it do us to know?

Punter: Hey, whats this stuff that seems to have killed your bacterial culture?
Fleming:Why bother finding it out? What good will it do us to know?

Punter: What happens if you move a magnet near a wire?
Faraday:Why bother finding it out? What good will it do us to know?

With attitudes like that we would still be snacking on each others fleas and ticks whilst cowering from the thunder in a pokey cave somewhere.

The whole point of finding something out is to see whether it will do any good or not to know.

Sometimes you know it will, sometimes you know it wont (which is equally useful) and sometimes you really have no idea until you look.

Hmmm......

Before the Big Bang.....

A trip to the theatre? Then a candle-lit dinner? Then a little light seduction and foreplay....??

:-)

Seriously, it IS important to do basic research in to this stuff. The way that particle physicists go around smashing 7 levels of **** out of sub-atomic particles in their particle accelerators it would be helpful for them to know that they're not going to trigger a localised version of the main event.

Sort of Big Bang's Little Bang.....

Joe

Nice to see the humour returning to the forum ;)

Before the Big Bang, there was God.

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation) before We split them apart? And that We made from water every living thing? Will they not then believe?

Koran Chapter 21, Verse 30

And that little gem was was revealed over 1400 years ago, Fellow Sheffielders.

I was talking about this the other day with my friends!

The universe probably isn't infinite (it's just too big for us to imagine or even possibly conceive). It could well be donut shaped, the hole in the middle being where the big bang occured. So far, we have worked out theoretically where the big bang occured as we can measure how far particles have moved and the distance and time etc. However, it is quite conceivable that as the particles created from the big bang continue to move outwards of the explosion ("the universe is forever expanding") then the hole in the middle also gets bigger, so the universe isn't actually getting bigger, everything is just moving with time away from the bang but the area stays the same.
In theory, if we created a machine that was faster than the movement of the universe, we would in fact come to the edge of it as we catch the movement up. However, there's also the argument that the shape of the universe would mean you would keep going and end up where you started. In reality we can't create such a machine so the universe would appear to be infinite as we move away following the particles path from the big bang we'd never catch them up so would go on forever.

I think the generally accepted wild speculation in cosmology circles is that the universe is pretty much flat, with a few wrinkles here and there caused by some 'quite large' objects.

There is even a theory floating about that lots of the stars and galaxies we see are the same stars elsewhere in the sky, reflected in some insane cosmological hall of mirrors - following the theory that given a point in space and good enough eyesight you could see the back of your own head in front of you.

There's some serious research into whether this might be true.

On an intuitive level I favour the steady state theory of a universe being the vibration in a string, the harmonic nodes being big bangs (points of singularity) and the zenith of the arc being the beginning of the collapse.

The question who or what plucks the string, and once more we are facing Aristotle and his prime mover.

The likelihood is we face an infinite regression of frontiers if we can continue making sense of what we see when we look outward, however irreducible things appear when we look inward.

Q: What was before the big bang?
A: A Chav with a match.

Before the Big Bang it would've been alot more peaceful and quiet thats for damn sure!

Yeah God probably did exist before the Big Bang. He might've been having a BBQ which went terribly wrong. The resulting explosion as god put extra gasoline on the furnace created the Earth and all the heavenly beings.

Earth, by the way, is the swear word that god shouted when he burnt his beard on the BBQ.

Meanwhile the inhabitants of 'Earth' heard god swear and thought the newly created world was called Earth, so it stuck.

Oh yeah! The stars are actually bangers which flew from the deity's grill and got stuck in the universe where they continually burn forever.

Motto is thus: Never put gasoline on your BBQ. Ever.

Personally I like the idea of the Big-Crunch, Big-Bang cycle [one of my own]

Universe expands after the big bang like it is doing now, but after a bit it goes in on itself until it gets so small it cant get any smaller and then BANG it goes into big bang mode. we're just in the bang part of the cycle.

It's a wild idea but I'm sticking to it until proven wrong :P

What i dont understand (not that i particularly understand any the theories) is the fact that whether or not the big bang or any other universe creating recipe
actually occured nothing can explain why it it is all here.

If there was nothing (including any matter,antimatter or any other relative bits n bobs) then how did any of anything happen?
Surely the fact that there was nothing in existence would disprove any theories about the creation of the universe as nothing was there to provide the things necessary for anything to happen.
A bit confusing.

most of the question actually depends on what you mean by:

"big bang"
and "before"
and "universe".

but I can't be bothered trying to define my terms either so...

space and time are the same thing. In the beginning spacetime exploded out from an infinitely small point or singularity. You can't investigate the point, because

a) its farther away than we can imagine
b) it doesn't exist anymore
c) the 'laws' of physics do not apply to the point
d)it exists out of spacetime.

The only reason we assume the big bang happened is because all matter and radiation is flying out at a uniform rate from a single point. Looking out into the night sky you see a history of the universe and by rewinding this history it seems very clear that the universe all came from the same infinitesimally small point.

But unless you are in the habit of thinking in more than three dimensions, it hurts.

Of course there are problems with the Big Bang theories - mainly that there isn't actually enough matter in the universe to support the theory. It fits the facts, except the universe is too light.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme


Of course there are problems with the Big Bang theories - mainly that there isn't actually enough matter in the universe to support the theory. It fits the facts, except the universe is too light.

isn't that where dark matter comes into it though?

I know a lot of peeps find this a pointless discussion, but i can't help but be fascinated by where everything began

That's the point though; everything came from nothing. It's impossible to imagine.

Originally posted by Andy78
isn't that where dark matter comes into it though?

I know a lot of peeps find this a pointless discussion, but i can't help but be fascinated by where everything began
me too. It is very absorbing.


mmmm, dark matter.

its invisible,
it has no energy,
it is everywhere,

or maybe it is actually WIMPS?

whatever it is, it helps to consolidate important big bang theories upon which many things rest...

A bloody tense moment, I would have thought.....

the big blowing of the balloon?

How about this for a theory:

The universe has been through a cycle of big bangs - each one leaves behind an entropically maximal universe i.e. an even spread of low energy particles. Being at an energetic minimum these particles wouldn't give out light and being evenly spread would be difficult to detect from the background (effectively they ARE the background) Each big bang produces the barymetric particles we see, the residues of the last one(s) producing a background of dark matter particles. As time is tied to space and matter each big bang would produce its own relaitive timeline so the particles of the big bang would be qualitatively different from those of the preceeding big bangmaking them even harder to detect. As this cycle contiues the universe will eventially reach a point of near perfect entropy as the overwhelming mass of dark matter renders the visably barymetric matter negligable...

...now someone prove I'm wrong ;)

Originally posted by Sidla
Couldn't creating anti-matter be potentially catastrophic if it came in contact with matter?
Not really, we can only create very small amounts, so said very small amount comes into contact with matter and an equal amount of both (all of the antimatter) is converted back into the energy that we created it from in the first place.




Also, I don't understand how there could have been nothing in exsistance before space and time, for two reasons. Firstly, where is space (the universe)? And secondly, at some point in time, time must have began, which is a fairly paradoxical statement.

that simply a failure of our minds to grasp the problem. The universe is space, it doesn't exist within itself so there is no 'where' that we can understand for it to be.
You've almost got it with the time. At some point (not in time) time began, before that time did not exist, nor did any other dimension that we can wrap our tiny little organic brains around.

There have been several studies released recently that have shown a good argument for the universe to be finite, and they've even worked out a shape. It's a mathematical shape called a picard funnel (or something along those lines). It's basically like a funnel where the spout becomes infinitely long and infinitely narrow. The top somehow twists back on itself... I think.... either way you could theoretically arrive back where you started whilst going in a straight line away from it (if you went for a really long time!).

Isn't it a bit of a coincidence as well that as precisely as we can calculate (probably not all that accurately) the universe is poised right on the brink of heat death/big crunch. Is there a theoretical point where neither would happen and the size of the universe would stabilise, who knows?

The big bang was a product of a previous big bang that had declined and come into being again. I'ts all cyclical, it goes on infinitum, like nature and the seasons.
Birth, Death, Rebirth

Don't think I sound any madder than you, anyway!!

I read somewhere that scientists could recreate their own big bang. This means that we may be the products of a big bang from another dimension.