If the univerese was formed by The Big Bang, what was there before The Big Bang happened?

Arpeggionist

They've still got a team of specialists trying to figure out what the matter that formed our universe was like before it formed our universe, and why it suddenly exploded only 13 billion years ago (or thereabouts). Apr 17 05, 5:02 AM

peasypod

One of my favourite theoretical physicists Paul Davies has a unique knack for dumbing up physics to the point where even the scientifically challenged can interpret the odd theory or two...and here is a perfect example. (I must say, it is handy if you have a PhD in quantum mechanics in order to read some of his books, oh, and a perfect record for chuch attendance on Sundays too...) http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html Apr 17 05, 6:34 AM

chris42

No one knows for sure and the Big Bang is only a theory. Apr 17 05, 6:34 AM

Arpeggionist

There's always one who splits hairs (or atoms, as the case may be). Apr 17 05, 6:45 AM

lanfranco

Davies sounds a lot like Richard Feynman, who once commented that no one understood quantum mechanics. He also remarked, "Physics is like sex; sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." The phrase "only a theory" is causing some controversy where I come from. Gravity is a theory, but I tend to believe it exists. Apr 17 05, 8:07 AM

gmackematix

If time and space were created in the Big Bang then what does the question mean by "before" and "there"? Apr 17 05, 12:32 PM

gmackematix

But of course, you should look at Peasy's site for more easy to understand depth on this issue. Apr 17 05, 12:37 PM

Flynn_17

People seem to have a big probelsm imagining nothing. There was nothing. Nothing existed. Existence did not exist. It just... didn't. Wasn't. Apr 17 05, 3:12 PM

Baloo55th

Yeah, people can imagine nothing when it is surrounded by something, but not something when it is surrounded by nothing. Nothing in this case means absolutely nothing, NOT just space. Space may not contain very much, but it is there. Take away the stray bits of dust, create the hardest vacuum you can - you've still got space-time there. The nothing 'outside' the Universe has no matter, no energy, no time passing, no dimensions, and as a result, no way of actually detecting it (that we are capable of at the moment). Apr 17 05, 3:24 PM

satguru

Eastern beliefs (and many other ancient ones) have no agreement with any big bang as they say the physical universe is only a dream, and time is part of the illusion. So there is no before or after, everything is, and infinity was and always will be. It's not for maths or science to analyse, as they are dependent on the illusion as well and can only work in our physical one. For example, there are no laws of time of physics in a dream, are there? Imagine a waking universe like that, anything can happen. Some people already say this can be done by people who have awoken to the dream, and proves the physical universe is generated not by a big bang, but by our own minds. Check out David Icke for the theory and Sai Baba for the examples of power over the physical. Apr 17 05, 4:22 PM

TheAlphaWolf

"the Big Bang is only a theory." SCIENTIFIC theory. "If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along. " http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html Apr 17 05, 5:21 PM

lanfranco

Amen, AlphaWolf. Apr 17 05, 5:41 PM

onlytrivial

Some phycisists believe that our current universe emerged from the super-condensed singularity of a black hole. A singularity would comprise all the matter in the universe compacted into the size of a proton. It is believed all the matter would be from a universe which suffered from a 'Big Crunch'. The massive eruption of the singularity was the Big Bang. Another theory is that nothing existed but energy, and a small fluctuation in the energy levels led to the creation of a universe. This is hard to grapple and it is certainly 'just' a theory. Apr 18 05, 1:51 AM

Baloo55th

Whether or not the Universe is illusion, it does seem to follow certain rules so far as most people are concerned. David Icke may have his own Universe which only marginally impinges on that of the majority of people. The difference between science and religion in matters like this is that science expects further research that may fundamentally disagree with existing theories, as they in their turn disagreed with former ones. Most religions expect that people will accept the wisdom of the ancients and not question it. (OK, there are more recent founded religions, but they operate on the same 'do not question' basis.) This is what is meant by 'science is falsifiable'. It doesn't mean that people are fudging their results (some do, but usually get caught out.) It means that any scientific proposition may be found to be wrong. The people who thought up the proposition may not be happy to be proved wrong, but at least they don't call in the Inquisitors... Apr 18 05, 6:42 AM

Stew54

Baloo's comparison of the worlds of science and religion is a good one, but there are fewer differences than you might suppose. Some scientific theories are very easy to accept (the fact that there is gravity for instance if not necessarily how it operates) because the supporting observations are readily able to be understood and duplicated. But many scientific theories depend on results that are difficult to understand and/or to reproduce, and to that extent scientific theories no less than religious convictions have to be taken on trust. Even the comparison with the Inquisition is a good one - the way that scientific "establishments" defend their views against competing theories would make a shark squirm. Several observations that are (relatively) easy for scientists to accept and duplicate point to the validity of the Big Bang theory. Thus in principle it has a wide level of acceptance in the modern scientific community. In its detail though there are no observations that clearly show how the Big Bang began. And when it comes to this topic - BEFORE the Big Bang - well all scientific bets are off and we're thrown back entirely on faith. Before the Big Bang there can have been nothing at all that we can now observe, not even a concept of "before" in fact since neither time nor space nor anything that defines our universe and they way we observe and understand it can be shown to have existed "before" the Big Bang. Apr 18 05, 7:39 AM

Baloo55th

Of course the other main difference between science and religion is that while science does take certain things on trust - matters of faith, even - scientists are busily trying to prove these very things. Religion tends to keep things as matters of faith, and people who try to prove them usually fail - or fall foul of a suspicious establishment. Apr 18 05, 6:02 PM

kaylofgorons

The fact that the earth revolves around the sun has been observed. I'm pretty sure that needn't be a theory anymore. That would be like traveling around the earth in a space shuttle and still calling it flat. Copernicus was right about the sun, but he had the planets traveling in concentric cirlces. Kepler scrapped that idea and developed the laws of planetary motion that let NASA send things exactly where they want them. Challenging Copernicus's theory only improved our knowledge. As to the universe, either someone made it up, or it's always been there. Take your pick. :) ...checking and rechecking to see if this will cause an unintended spas-attack... Apr 18 05, 7:55 PM

TheAlphaWolf

But the fact is, they're still theories. And that's what scientists mean when they say "theory" Many other things have been observed but are still theories. Speciation for example :) Apr 18 05, 9:12 PM

kaylofgorons

*patting wolfie on the head* It's only what you make of it. There is only one world, but billions of people in it, and no two of them will ever agree on everything. Apr 18 05, 9:25 PM

Arpeggionist

It was actually not Kepler who solved the problem of the planets and their orbits, but rather Isaac Newton and Edmund Halley who managed to come up with scientific explanations for them. Apr 19 05, 4:03 AM

Baloo55th

The Earth revolving around the Sun has been observed, but I don't think it's been proved yet. After all, it had been observed previously that the Sun revolved round the Earth. Then, things revolved in epicycles, but now they revolve around common points which are affected by other systems revolving round common points of their own, etc. Much simpler... Something is only 'proved' when it can be tied down in a lab and reproduced and mathematical formulae written all over it, and even then someone horrible may come along and point out that another idea works better. The first scientific theory was probably that the sun would come up from behind that mountain tomorrow. It worked until the tribe moved to another cave, and someone moved the sun so it came up somewhere else as well. Apr 19 05, 6:44 AM

Create a Free FunTrivia ID to add to, request more/new answers, or edit this entry

What is the registration number of 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang'? Which operation involves a bang or a shriek? Is Steven Hawking a proponent of the Big Bang Theory? Who came up with the term "Big Bang"?

1 Big Bang Theory May 10, 2005 saw the US release of STYX's 15th studio album: "Big Bang Theory". It is the first to feature the Shaw, Young, Gowan, Sucherman, Phillips, Panozzo line-up. This one is all cover tunes. See how well you know them! Styx Average 15 Q Chadler Jun 11 05 201 plays 2 The Big Bang Theory "The Big Bang Theory" premiered on September 24, 2007 on CBS. It has given intelligent viewers big reasons to laugh ever since! Here is a quiz on the show and its cast. Big Bang Theory Average 10 Q ferfer72 Jan 17 08 1686 plays 3 Big Bang Experiment On 10 September 2008, a landmark experiment commenced to try and recreate the conditions that happened just after the ‘Big Bang’. This quiz has ten questions about this experiment. Atomic and Subatomic Physics Average 10 Q deepakmr Sep 15 08 768 plays