Pre-Big Bang?

[Jason]

Are there any scientific theories on what was going on pre-Big Bang? I assume there are. What are the main ones right now? This is something that was brought up in a thread I was reading on another forum and it got me curious.

[McC]

As I understand it, the Big Bang was the explosion from singularity into everything. That includes the expansion from non-dimensionality to the four dimensions we are familiar with. The fourth of those dimensions is time.

Tell me, what meaning does the term "before" have when time does not exist?

Another way to explain it is that nothing came before the Big Bang, because "before" was a concept that was impossible.

Unless I'm out-of-date on my understanding, this is the implication of the Big Bang. "Before" implies time, which itself did not exist as a dimension until (and note here, my use of "until" is erroneous, because it also implies time) the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the beginning of time itself.

[Ace Pace]

Actually, the question he's asking is, what caused the big bang? I.E he wants first cause.

[Rye]

The expansion of spacetime is part of the big bang, so events occurring before it sounds a bit iffy.

[SCRawl]

I'll put it the way Hawking did: asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. The question doesn't make sense.

[VT-16]

That explanation made more sense to me than saying "there was no time", since for all we know, the Big Bang could merely be one of many similar events. If you go past the North Pole, on the other hand, you will end up somewhere, it just won't be the same "climax" or "peak".

[McC]

Actually, the question he's asking is, what caused the big bang? I.E he wants first cause.

Precisely, which as I and others have expressed, is an nonsensical question. There cannot be a cause-effect cycle, which necessitates a time dimension, when time itself does not exist. There can be no first cause, as such, unless some kind of radical revision requires us to totally revisit some of our fundamental understanding of cosmology. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

This is, admittedly, a tremendously difficult concept to swallow for any terrestrial creature because we are so fundamentally dependent on causality in our perception of the universe. It wasn't until reading the website of a physicist (I can't recall whose website it was at this point) that the explanation was made in such a way as I could finally understand it.

[VT-16]

That explanation made more sense to me than saying "there was no time", since for all we know, the Big Bang could merely be one of many similar events. If you go past the North Pole, on the other hand, you will end up somewhere, it just won't be the same "climax" or "peak".

EDIT: Meant to add that, similarly, BB would jsut be another peak point, neither a beginning nor an end.

[Jason]

Would it also be accurate to say that "before" the Big Bang nothing really existed? Or was everything just a tiny compressed bit of matter?

[SCRawl]

That explanation made more sense to me than saying "there was no time", since for all we know, the Big Bang could merely be one of many similar events. If you go past the North Pole, on the other hand, you will end up somewhere, it just won't be the same "climax" or "peak".

EDIT: Meant to add that, similarly, BB would jsut be another peak point, neither a beginning nor an end.

Well, Hawking's a clever guy. What I think he meant, though, was that it's simply impossible to go north of the northern-most point of the world. There's nowhere to go.

[McC]

Would it also be accurate to say that "before" the Big Bang nothing really existed? Or was everything just a tiny compressed bit of matter?

Not really. That's more of a conceit to the human notion of causality than it is an accurate reflection of what seems to have occurred.

While it's true that matter (along with dimensions) sprang into being with the Big Bang, it's difficult to call it a "tiny compressed bit of matter." The Big Bang had infinite density -- all the mass of the universe, in 0 dimensional space.

It would be better to simply say that, "The concept of 'before' only had any meaning after the Big Bang occurred."

[Jason]

This is definitely some weighty stuff to wrap one's brain around, and thanks to those who have replied so far.

So "until" the Big Bang occured there was no before, now, or after, right? All existence was compressed into a single, dimensionless singularity with infinite density.

I'm going to assume that the laws of physics did not exist either?

Are there any books or links geared towards the general reader which go over this?

[Darth Wong]

Would it also be accurate to say that "before" the Big Bang nothing really existed? Or was everything just a tiny compressed bit of matter?

It would be more accurate to say that there was no such thing as "before" the Big Bang.

[Darth Wong]

I'm going to assume that the laws of physics did not exist either?

The laws of physics are merely the behaviour of the physical universe that was spawned by the Big Bang. They do not and never did "exist" as discrete entities.

[Jason]

So the laws of physics are just the way the universe works. No universe (since there was no "before" the Big Bang), the entire concept of "the way the universe works" becomes meaningless.

You'll have to bear with me as I try grasping this, it isn't an area of expertise for me.

[McC]

That's essentially correct. A scientific law is an always-reliable equation. The "laws" of physics are a collection of these. However, these laws are merely (I used the word merely here very casually -- this is actually a very big deal, if you think about it) descriptions of how the universe is. The universe does not "obey" these laws, so much as these laws describe the way the universe works.

The Big Bang is the beginning of the universe. As such, "prior" to the Big Bang, there was no universe, and thus nothing to describe.

Again, though, the fact that I have to rely on a causal word like "prior" to relate this is extremely erroneous. That must be remembered in a conversation like this, rather than taking the word at face value.

[Jason]

OK, I understand that use of relative time descriptors is just to facilitate the discussion, but in actuality they are meaningless sans the universe. The universe is all of existence, time included, and the laws of physics are mathematical expressions which describe how it works. The universe does not obey the laws in the sense that a human may obey a legal law, the universe's nature itself defines those laws. The important thing is the universe!

There is no before the Big Bang. Even asking the question is meaningless!

I think I'm getting it but...GAH!

[McC]

It can be really tough to wrap your head around this stuff. It makes a lot of sense, and becomes very logical when examined from a perspective beyond human-layered bias. However, overcoming what we tend to think of as "common sense" -- A precedes B precedes C and so forth -- is a very difficult challenge. So far, you seem to be doing very admirably, so kudos.

[Exileman]

After reading this thread, one thing kept coming to mind. "Wow, this is all so very Zen."
A common zen question is to think about your face before your parents existed. This is up that alley, and further down the block.

[TithonusSyndrome]

After reading this thread, one thing kept coming to mind. "Wow, this is all so very Zen."
A common zen question is to think about your face before your parents existed. This is up that alley, and further down the block.

In my experience, all things "zen" are just kind of opaque or intentionally confounding gibberish intended to confuse you into not thinking about anything else. The nature of the big bang is definitely not self-indulgent riddling without any point.

[Exileman]

No, it definately does have a point. It was not my intention to belittle the Big Bang. Merely, contemplating the existance of the universe prior to the big bang seemed very in line with zen teachings.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Oh no troubles, I just wasn't sure if that distinction was firmly established. I tend to get a little more aggressive when I sense that the line between mysticism and science is being threatened, so don't take it personally.

[Gullible Jones]

There are hypotheses, actually, such as the colliding-brane thing from M-theory... None are backed by any evidence whatsoever though.

[SCRawl]

There are hypotheses, actually, such as the colliding-brane thing from M-theory... None are backed by any evidence whatsoever though.

Reading that kind of terminology made my brain turn off when I read the latest Hawking book. And my degree is in physics.

[loomer]

This thread has been remarkably useful for me too, as I've been wondering about some of the mechanics of the big bang myself.