What existed before the big bang?

[SwayzesGhost]

That does not mean they are coming from nothing. 

Particles that appear in the empty space between atoms aren't coming from nothing? What kind of logic is that?

Cause they are appearing in universe with already something in it. Its presumptuous to assume they are creating themselves from nothing.

[One Above All]

Its presumptuous to assume they are creating themselves from nothing.

That's why nobody is assuming that. They appear from nothing, but they don't create themselves. That's just stupid.

Seriously, once again, do you know what the fuck you're talking about?

[SwayzesGhost]

Its presumptuous to assume they are creating themselves from nothing.

That's why nobody is assuming that. They appear from nothing, but they don't create themselves. That's just stupid.

Seriously, once again, do you know what the fuck you're talking about?

Don't get pissy cause you support a untestable theory.

[One Above All]

Don't get pissy cause you support a untestable theory.

And we're back to the same unfounded claims. I'm not pissy. Quite the opposite. I pity you.
By the way, have you read the rules you agreed to follow when you joined? My guess is "no", since you keep making unfounded claims.

[SwayzesGhost]

Don't get pissy cause you support a untestable theory.

And we're back to the same unfounded claims. I'm not pissy. Quite the opposite. I pity you.
By the way, have you read the rules you agreed to follow when you joined? My guess is "no", since you keep making unfounded claims.

What unfounded claim is that

[One Above All]

What unfounded claim is that

That it's untestable.

[screwtape]

Let me clarify. That things pop into existence from nothingness.

(psst.  you forgot to say "except god")

Don't get pissy cause you support a untestable theory.

Is that a plank in your eye, brother?

[SwayzesGhost]

(psst.  you forgot to say "except god")

Pathetic attempt at baiting, and diverting the topic.

[ParkingPlaces]

I don't buy into the BS by Krauss, nor should you be claiming any of it as plausible.  Its untestable theories  backed by pseudo-science.  Its interesting,but all it is right now is science-fiction.

SwayzesGhost, green text like this means that a moderator is talking to you.

First of all, I ask that you put a little effort into being a bit less contentious. It is possible to disagree in sweeter ways. Secondly, if you are going to run around claiming everything is so obviously right from your point of view and so obviously wrong from our POVs, you kind of need to do more than provide short one and two sentence retorts that are merely your opinion. Your above claim that Krauss is using pseudo-science is a bit iffy, since he does science just like we expect science to be done, and though many theists have come here complaining about his findings, you are the first one to use the term "pseudo-science" Hence a detailed explanation is in order.

The suggestion that you read the rules was wise, as it is for everyone who joins. They are here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21732.0.html

And there is no need to completely quote every post you respond to. Especially since you are usually only responding to one point out of several. We have a section that teaches you how to do partial quotes, etc. too. You might read that if you aren't clear on the methodology. The instructions are here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,16778.0.html

We have, in recent months, been making an extra effort to keep our conversations with theists civil. But that requires effort on the part of both parties. Please make an effort to be a good representative of your faith. I'll make sure my atheists companions do the same for you. Understood?

[Gnu Ordure]

I don't know.

But there isn't a box for that, so I didn't vote.

I actually just added that Gnu. Thanks for mentioning it, you are free to vote now.

I've changed my mind, Kimberly. 

I now want to answer, The question is meaningless.

But there isn't a box for that, so I didn't vote. 

If someone believes that time began with the Big Bang (as many do), then asking what happened before it is a meaningless question.

[wright]

I don't know what might or might not have existed before the initial expansion of the universe. Our track record for understanding it (the universe) encourages me to believe we can, at least, learn quite a bit more.

[Frank]

A very long fuse.

[HAL]

I'm curious as to what the general consensus of this forum is about our existence and why you feel the way you do.

Some alien's kid left his universe-generating machine on.

[Kimberly]

If someone believes that time began with the Big Bang (as many do), then asking what happened before it is a meaningless question.

But they whys and the hows are what make it all so interesting. Curiosity, and a desire to understand the how we came to be intrigues me. It's far from meaningless questioning IMO.

At the end of the day it may not change anything other than having an answer. Or knowing could entirely change the course of life for our species. Who knows.

[Kimberly]

Some alien's kid left his universe-generating machine on.

Perhaps. Which would bring us to our next question. Are we alone in this universe? Or are there others out there like us[1].

1.	sentient beings

[Gnu Ordure]

If someone believes that time began with the Big Bang (as many do), then asking what happened before it is a meaningless question.

But they whys and the hows are what make it all so interesting. Curiosity, and a desire to understand the how we came to be intrigues me. It's far from meaningless questioning IMO.

Oh sure, I agree its good to ask questions - but some questions are better than others.


And on this particular question, Stephen Hawking agrees with me. 

From the wiki article on Time^Wiki:

Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. In A Brief History of Time and elsewhere, Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame. Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless.

In his own words:

One can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question because there is nothing south of the South Pole.

[Kimberly]

I understand what you meant now. Good quotes Gnu!

I used to watch Through The Wormhole, I wish I could remember the name of the theory... I will prob mess this all up but they basically had these curtains, all hanging around in a circle. They were all moving normal in this circle until something happened and knocked one of them into the next one. Those curtains were supposed to represent dimensions[1] and that this theory says when the two dimensions collided they may have created our universe.

IDK I prob screwed that all up but I wish I could remember what it was called so I look it up. It basically went on from there to say much more than I can remember well enough to repeat. I prob shouldn't have even attempted this one as a I'm sure I've got all wrong.

1.	If I remember correctly

[screwtape]

(psst.  you forgot to say "except god")

Pathetic attempt at baiting, and diverting the topic.

You mean you don't make an exception for god?

[none]

I'm curious as to what the general consensus of this forum is about our existence and why you feel the way you do. So, please, by all means enlighten us all with your opinion.

What existed before the big bang? What makes you believe this, and/or how did you come to this conclusion.

Thank you for your time.

I voted other: singularity
the big bang hinges on that doesn't it?
it says at some point in time a singularity changed... or am I mistaken?

[Azdgari]

SwayzesGhost, during what period of time did God create time?

For how long might he have existed, before he created time?

[Bereft_of_Faith]

I will prob mess this all up but they basically had these curtains, all hanging around in a circle. They were all moving normal in this circle until something happened and knocked one of them into the next one. Those curtains were supposed to represent dimensions[1] and that this theory says when the two dimensions collided they may have created our universe.

1.	If I remember correctly

You may be referring to M theory, Brane (Membrane), building on string theory. 

[jdawg70]

I'm curious as to what the general consensus of this forum is about our existence and why you feel the way you do. So, please, by all means enlighten us all with your opinion.

What existed before the big bang? What makes you believe this, and/or how did you come to this conclusion.

Thank you for your time.

I voted other: singularity
the big bang hinges on that doesn't it?
it says at some point in time a singularity changed... or am I mistaken?

I'm not sure this is accurate.  'Singularity', in the case of the Big Bang model, basically is a placeholder term for 'we broke us our math'.  Refinements to the various models of reality that have been put forward over the past few hundred years should allow people to either a) fix the borked math and explain 'pre-Big Bang' more determinately or b) fix the borked math and correct the existing flaws in the Big Bang model that lead to a mathematical breakdown of physics.

But the Big Bang model doesn't really hinge on the existence of a singularity.  There is this period of time before 10^-43 seconds where the mathematical models grind to a halt and lose predictive power.  May as well write 'Here Be Dragons' on that singularity.

Exercises such as string theory, M theory, or whatever other proposed models that theoretical physics churns out are attempts to fix the math and create a cohesive model that would (hopefully) produce experimentally testable predictions.

[Godexists]

Nothing physical existed beyond the Big Bang. This view is shared by most modern scientists and astro-physicists. Of course, that constitutes a big problem for strong atheists, since that view does not fit into their world view. So they must make up a lot of things, and fancy ideas sproud all over : multi verses, M-theory, bubble universes etc..... nothing with a shred of empirical evidence. its a tough business to try to cancel a creator away.

[screwtape]

Nothing physical existed beyond the Big Bang.

^ I've pinpointed your problem.  Certitude.  You could have said "As far as we know...", which is what any science guy would have done.  But you didn't.  You made a point blank assertion as if you knew what you were talking about (but you don't) and as if it was the be all, end all of truth (it isn't). And you did that for dishonest reasons:

Of course, that constitutes a big problem for strong atheists, since that view does not fit into their world view. So they must make up a lot of things, and fancy ideas sproud all over : multi verses, M-theory, bubble universes etc..... nothing with a shred of empirical evidence. its a tough business to try to cancel a creator away.

You thought it would bolster your belief in a man with super powers.  It doesn't.

[Godexists]

Nothing physical existed beyond the Big Bang.

^ I've pinpointed your problem.  Certitude.  You could have said "As far as we know...", which is what any science guy would have done.  But you didn't.  You made a point blank assertion as if you knew what you were talking about (but you don't) and as if it was the be all, end all of truth (it isn't). And you did that for dishonest reasons:

Of course, that constitutes a big problem for strong atheists, since that view does not fit into their world view. So they must make up a lot of things, and fancy ideas sproud all over : multi verses, M-theory, bubble universes etc..... nothing with a shred of empirical evidence. its a tough business to try to cancel a creator away.

You thought it would bolster your belief in a man with super powers.  It doesn't.

So if the Big Bang was the beginning of our physical universe, what caused it into being ?

[jaimehlers]

its a tough business to try to cancel a creator away.

It's an even tougher business to posit such a creator when the evidence doesn't support it.

[screwtape]

So if the Big Bang was the beginning of our physical universe, what caused it into being ?

I don't know.  But so what?  That only proves there questions I cannot answer.  No big victory there.  There are about an infinite number of those.  Asking that question gets you nowhere. 

That does not mean by default you get to fill in your prefered iron age mythological figure.  I mean, you will, but that does not make it valid.  You have the same problem I do, plus one.  What caused god into being?  And if god gets a mulligan on that question, why?

[Truth OT]

From virtually any perspective one may have on the matter, it is very likely that most parties must concede that the idea of there being a nothing point is highly unlikely and perhaps even illogical. We can reasonable ASSUME that there was never a "nothing" point meaning that something(s) currently beyond our ability to define or explain (dark matter, for example is beyond our current ability to accurately define or fully explain) have always been.

The point of contention is that of the identity of the unknown. For the theist that believes in a creator God, they are convinced they have the answer despite a lack of evidence. While the rest of us look at the evidence we have and simply give the honest answer of "we don't and may never know."
It is extremely problematic to give an identity to that which is currently undefinable and completely and recklessly irresponsible to attach a dogma that can be used to control not only an individual's life, but also the progress and thinking of whole societies. We cannot stand for allowing such dishonesty to be considered the "holy grail" when in fact what it really is is a house built on sand.

So was something(s) before the big bang, perhaps, but at this point, no one know what was, so STOP it with the arrogant, irresponsible, dishonest, and unlikely proclamations about the God you have decided to believe in being that something like you actually know or have evidence that such a being is what you claim or even exists for that matter!

[jeremy0]

Nothing and something is the correct answer. 

My current theory looks to a black hole for answers to this - in a black hole, we basically have a huge mass of stuff that exists and yet doesn't.  If space-time is warped around it, then if space time were to be thought of as a balloon, with all matter floating around on the surface, the black hole would exist somewhere inside of that balloon.  I would think it's the same concept for a big-bang.

This is just my own idea.  Theory suggests that the universe, again imagining it as a balloon, will rip itself apart like the balloon popping, because of expansion beyond its limits.  I think the estimate was 30-60bln years, don't remember which.  The folks call it 'The big rip'.  It's relatively new.  So if matter can rip itself to shreds, destroying space-time, then the inverse of that would be the next 'big bang'.  Meaning that Einstein would be correct in saying the universe is infinite.  Just not in the way we imagined.

This would indicate that what exists before the big bang is actually what exists after the big bang, just space-time warps the dimensionality of it.  Then if we can say that a higgs boson does in fact give particles mass, well, I haven't really thought about that part much yet.  We have competing ideas - one says matter cannot be created or destroyed, another says it can be created but not destroyed.  Who knows where we will get with that - I'm waiting on the scientific announcement....

BTW  - these are just my opinions based on studies I've seen..

Also, my answer to your OP would be that we simply don't know yet, because we haven't yet proven physics to that degree.  That's why we have the haldron collider (sp?)!