AskScience: Got Questions? Get Answers.
Last sync: 1y ago
↑
16
↓
What happened in the universe before the Big Bang? Was it just an empty void for however many years? (self.askscience)
submitted 2d ago by The_Memeist_1000
Top_Chance_2735 20 points 1d ago
Everything in the universe was contained in the big bang. All space and time was in it. There is no concept of void outside of it. This is why they say big bang happened in every point in the universe, because everything is in it.
TheForce777 6 points 1d ago
But if the Big Bang happened, then what caused it to happen? What preceded it?
Did the latent/potential energetic force come from a non physical dimension or what?
Did the latent/potential energetic force come from a non physical dimension or what?
Top_Chance_2735 16 points 1d ago
As far as I know, we don't know what was before the big bang or why it happened or where the energy came from. We don't even know if there was a concept of time before big bang.
One interesting theory that Dr. Penrose has is that the universe at heat death is 'quantum mechanically similar' to big bang - highly homogenous and made of basic particles, which causes the universe to 'scale down' to a big bang. The end of one cycle and the beginning of another cycle of the universe and it keeps going.
One interesting theory that Dr. Penrose has is that the universe at heat death is 'quantum mechanically similar' to big bang - highly homogenous and made of basic particles, which causes the universe to 'scale down' to a big bang. The end of one cycle and the beginning of another cycle of the universe and it keeps going.
wifi444 0 points 1d ago
>One interesting theory that Dr. Penrose has is that the universe at heat death is 'quantum mechanically similar' to big bang - highly homogenous and made of basic particles, which causes the universe to 'scale down' to a big bang. The end of one cycle and the beginning of another cycle of the universe and it keeps going.
This makes total sense to me considering many different states of matter on Earth have cyclical life spans. Water goes from a liquid to a gas to a solid. Then back to a liquid, then a gas...
So why can't a universe go in and out of certain cyclical states of existence. In other words, heat death is not the end we interpret it to be but simply the evaporating of one state of existence of the Universe as it transitions to another state in the cycle.
This makes total sense to me considering many different states of matter on Earth have cyclical life spans. Water goes from a liquid to a gas to a solid. Then back to a liquid, then a gas...
So why can't a universe go in and out of certain cyclical states of existence. In other words, heat death is not the end we interpret it to be but simply the evaporating of one state of existence of the Universe as it transitions to another state in the cycle.
RedditAlt2847 3 points 14h ago
your reasoning is faulty there. while penrose says the two might be cyclical, it doesn’t have anything at all to do with states of matter.
lemoinem 5 points 1d ago
>But if the Big Bang happened, then what caused it to happen?
We do not know. But this is a way better formulation of the question. Cause & effect relationships don't need to be temporal.
For example, an object on earth without a floor to support it will fall. The cause is gravity, it is a causal but not temporal relationship.
>What preceded it?
As far as we can tell. Nothing because "preceded it" is ill defined in this context.
>Did the latent/potential energetic force come from a non physical dimension or what?
No, but the set of physical dimensions we are used to and able to describe with current models might not apply.
We do not know. But this is a way better formulation of the question. Cause & effect relationships don't need to be temporal.
For example, an object on earth without a floor to support it will fall. The cause is gravity, it is a causal but not temporal relationship.
>What preceded it?
As far as we can tell. Nothing because "preceded it" is ill defined in this context.
>Did the latent/potential energetic force come from a non physical dimension or what?
No, but the set of physical dimensions we are used to and able to describe with current models might not apply.
germz80 1 points 12h ago
>Nothing because "preceded it" is ill defined in this context.
How certain are scientists that "preceded" is ill defined in this context? Is this strongly supported by evidence?
How certain are scientists that "preceded" is ill defined in this context? Is this strongly supported by evidence?
lemoinem 2 points 12h ago
Ill defined doesn't mean "wrong". Ill defined means "has no meaning". Current models break apart completely once you reach the Big Bang. Going past it has no physical meaning.
It is not supported by evidence because that's the point: there is currently no evidence of anything beyond the Big Bang and there isn't even any theory about experiments that could be done to collect such evidence.
Our mathematical, theoretical, and hypothetical models are not even able to ask the question. This is the level we are currently operating at.
As theoretical physics steps forward and new theories are built (e.g., a GUT or ToE, probably even string theory could provide a meaningful framework around these), then, we might be able to create new models that can ask the question and describe the Big Bang (and its cause(s)) much better than a singularity at the beginning of time, or at least better describe the scenario.
At that point, evidence for that description will be any evidence for that new model that will be developed.
Of note, since current models (both GR and QFT) are extremely accurate at describing reality. We know they have theoretical limits, but are very far from being able to probe these limits experimentally.
So even once a new theoretical model that would provide a better description and fit all currently verifiable predictions has been developed, it will still be a long time away before we can start distinguishing experimentally between the current and new model.
So that's all quite a long way away.
It is not supported by evidence because that's the point: there is currently no evidence of anything beyond the Big Bang and there isn't even any theory about experiments that could be done to collect such evidence.
Our mathematical, theoretical, and hypothetical models are not even able to ask the question. This is the level we are currently operating at.
As theoretical physics steps forward and new theories are built (e.g., a GUT or ToE, probably even string theory could provide a meaningful framework around these), then, we might be able to create new models that can ask the question and describe the Big Bang (and its cause(s)) much better than a singularity at the beginning of time, or at least better describe the scenario.
At that point, evidence for that description will be any evidence for that new model that will be developed.
Of note, since current models (both GR and QFT) are extremely accurate at describing reality. We know they have theoretical limits, but are very far from being able to probe these limits experimentally.
So even once a new theoretical model that would provide a better description and fit all currently verifiable predictions has been developed, it will still be a long time away before we can start distinguishing experimentally between the current and new model.
So that's all quite a long way away.
clocks212 3 points 20h ago
One problem is as far as we know no information could have been preserved “through” the Big Bang.
For example if you burn a piece of paper in your fireplace it will turn into a tiny bit of energy, ashes, smoke, etc, but theoretically you could (with perfect knowledge) reconstruct the piece of paper *at any time in the future* by examining the energy and location of all particles in the entire universe (with the exception of, maybe, the particles that fall into black holes).
The Big Bang didn’t “preserve” the ashes and smoke and energy of any “paper” that existed before (if anything existed at all) as far as we know. There was so much energy at that moment that as far as we know even the fundamental forces of the universe were combined into a single force. If electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear force, and gravity were a single force then you’re not likely going to be able to reconstruct anything that may have existed prior to that moment that relied on those four forces being separated as we know them today.
For example if you burn a piece of paper in your fireplace it will turn into a tiny bit of energy, ashes, smoke, etc, but theoretically you could (with perfect knowledge) reconstruct the piece of paper *at any time in the future* by examining the energy and location of all particles in the entire universe (with the exception of, maybe, the particles that fall into black holes).
The Big Bang didn’t “preserve” the ashes and smoke and energy of any “paper” that existed before (if anything existed at all) as far as we know. There was so much energy at that moment that as far as we know even the fundamental forces of the universe were combined into a single force. If electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear force, and gravity were a single force then you’re not likely going to be able to reconstruct anything that may have existed prior to that moment that relied on those four forces being separated as we know them today.
Lost-Basil5797 4 points 1d ago
There can't be causality without spacetime, I think. At least, not a temporal one (one event at moment t causing another one at t+1).
I personally think there might be a form of logical causality though, as in, if you start from absolutely nothing, there is no alternative to "something" happening. Then that something has no alternative to dividing within itself, and somewhere further in this chain of logical inevitabilities spacetime emerges and the physical world as we know it start existing.
So yeah, I'd put my money on a form of non physical dimension, most likely a purely logical one. I also think these dimensions still exist as "boundaries" to our physical world. It's just very weird to think about with our brains made for physical existence and thus used to temporal causality. The logical causality I'm talking about would appear "instantaneous" to any physical entity.
I personally think there might be a form of logical causality though, as in, if you start from absolutely nothing, there is no alternative to "something" happening. Then that something has no alternative to dividing within itself, and somewhere further in this chain of logical inevitabilities spacetime emerges and the physical world as we know it start existing.
So yeah, I'd put my money on a form of non physical dimension, most likely a purely logical one. I also think these dimensions still exist as "boundaries" to our physical world. It's just very weird to think about with our brains made for physical existence and thus used to temporal causality. The logical causality I'm talking about would appear "instantaneous" to any physical entity.
PiccadillyPineapple 2 points 1d ago
Long and short answer is: "we don't know at the current time, but we may discover evidence to suggest an answer in the future."
mckham 2 points 1d ago
Help me out please: The James Web Space Telescope is peering to the begining of the universe, they say. What makes that light we can see way back there still over there and we are here? if there was an observer over there he would see us like in what period? Thank you
corvus0525 3 points 1d ago
If there was an observer in that location and they looked towards us they would see this region of the universe as it was 13ish billion years ago. This is because light take time to travel from here to there, and only the light from 13ish billion years has had the time to travel that far.
Dull-Profit4355 5 points 1d ago
The simple answer is we don’t know at the moment, but with e.g. studies of the gravitational wave background there are ideas to measure this in the future.
Information travels with the speed of light. When we look into the sky the farther away something is the more time has passed between the light being emitted and us seeing it. This allows us to look into the history of our universe by looking farther into the distance.
So far we have mainly looked at the early universe through the electromagnetic radiation (radio waves / microwave background). But there is a limit how far into the past we can look with this as the universe used to be extremely bright an opaque when it was very dense and hot.
Together with observations of the current universe (structure, composition, expansion) these are the measurements that constrain our Models of the early universe (e.g. ΛCDM model). This tells us the universe has expanded and was much more dense and hot. We can look at extrapolations of these models closer to the Big Bang and beyond to get some hints what might have been before.
As the early universe after the Big Bang was opaque to electromagnetic radiation but probably transparent for gravitational waves we hope to get data from farther back. Just a few days ago some first measurements of a gravitational wave background from the early universe have been published (nanoGRAV pulsar timing array, doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6). So we are living in exciting times regarding this question!
Information travels with the speed of light. When we look into the sky the farther away something is the more time has passed between the light being emitted and us seeing it. This allows us to look into the history of our universe by looking farther into the distance.
So far we have mainly looked at the early universe through the electromagnetic radiation (radio waves / microwave background). But there is a limit how far into the past we can look with this as the universe used to be extremely bright an opaque when it was very dense and hot.
Together with observations of the current universe (structure, composition, expansion) these are the measurements that constrain our Models of the early universe (e.g. ΛCDM model). This tells us the universe has expanded and was much more dense and hot. We can look at extrapolations of these models closer to the Big Bang and beyond to get some hints what might have been before.
As the early universe after the Big Bang was opaque to electromagnetic radiation but probably transparent for gravitational waves we hope to get data from farther back. Just a few days ago some first measurements of a gravitational wave background from the early universe have been published (nanoGRAV pulsar timing array, doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6). So we are living in exciting times regarding this question!
Dull-Profit4355 2 points 1d ago
Regarding the part of the question about an empty void before the Big Bang: One of the fundamental laws of nature we observe is conservation of energy and mass. The universe being empty and then somehow filling up seems extremely unlikely.
corvus0525 2 points 1d ago
Conservation laws derive from invariants in how fields work. There is no conservation of mass law. There is a local conservation of mass-energy. There are some questions on a universal conservation of mass-energy in an expanding universe. That is the total energy of the universe in the past is not necessarily the same as the total energy today.
lemoinem 22 points 1d ago
This is kind of like asking "what happens north of the north pole?"
The question has no meaning "before The Big Bang" is not a time that exists because the Big Bang is the furthest point in the past where the concept of time as we know it has any meaning.
This doesn't mean the Big Bang was the creation of the Universe. But it does mean that we have literally no way of even asking questions about before it
The question has no meaning "before The Big Bang" is not a time that exists because the Big Bang is the furthest point in the past where the concept of time as we know it has any meaning.
This doesn't mean the Big Bang was the creation of the Universe. But it does mean that we have literally no way of even asking questions about before it
[deleted] 1 points 1d ago
[removed]
elpajaroquemamais 2 points 1d ago
Because it’s good to give an example of why it’s an unanswerable question. Comparing things and drawing parallels are natural ways of answering questions.
mckham -2 points 1d ago
You have a point somwhow and lets agree top desgree; I still maintain that there is an element of confusion if you ask " what is noth of north pole". You are sending the person who asked the question in another quest and the confusion mighjt just pile up. We do not know what the question to question can do in making the whole thing more of a rabbit hole. Focus on the qustion and give a straght answer. Now we have two questions that need answering.
elpajaroquemamais 5 points 1d ago
Most people wouldn’t get distracted and go searching for a new answer. They’d realize it was an analogy and move on. We won’t agree to disagree. It’s a normal thing humans do in conversation and you don’t get to “agree to disagree” on that fact.
The_Memeist_1000 [OP] 1 points 22h ago
This is why I ask the scientists lol
nixie_ixii 4 points 1d ago
Dr. Stephen Hawking simplifies the question of “before the Big Bang “ by asking “ if you go to the exact North Pole, where would you go, to go more north?” Obviously nowhere, there is no more north from the North Pole. There is no before the Big Bang. At least that was his answer. As for what started or created it? I have my personal theories but I don’t think anyone knows
[deleted] -3 points 1d ago
[removed]
[deleted] 0 points 1d ago
[removed]
[deleted] 1 points 1d ago
[removed]
[deleted] -1 points 1d ago
[removed]
[deleted] 5 points 1d ago
[removed]
[deleted] -1 points 1d ago
[removed]
idontprocastinate 0 points 1d ago
Here is my view based on what I read. Universe is neutrality ( zero) , matter + anti matter. If there was no universe before the Big Bang then everything after big bang when combined will equal nothing. Time is a part of the universe, so it only exists after universe came into existence.
Ok_Bookkeeper_3481 1 points 21h ago
I will have to plug in the words of the immortal Terry Pratchett about the origin of the Discworld, carried through space on the back of a cosmic turtle (although they don’t directly address the question):
“There was, for example, the theory that A'Tuin had come from nowhere and would continue at a uniform crawl, or steady gait, into nowhere, for all time. This theory was popular among academics. An alternative, favoured by those of a religious persuasion, was that A'Tuin was crawling from the Birthplace to the Time of Mating, as were all the stars in the sky which were, obviously, also carried by giant turtles. When they arrived they would briefly and passionately mate, for the first and only time, and from that fiery union new turtles would be born to carry a new pattern of worlds. This was known as the Big Bang hypothesis.”
“There was, for example, the theory that A'Tuin had come from nowhere and would continue at a uniform crawl, or steady gait, into nowhere, for all time. This theory was popular among academics. An alternative, favoured by those of a religious persuasion, was that A'Tuin was crawling from the Birthplace to the Time of Mating, as were all the stars in the sky which were, obviously, also carried by giant turtles. When they arrived they would briefly and passionately mate, for the first and only time, and from that fiery union new turtles would be born to carry a new pattern of worlds. This was known as the Big Bang hypothesis.”
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc • HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.