5 ms·

I'm not the physicist (my mother was), but as I understand it the 'came into existence' is not part of the big bang model. Big bang only makes sense to a parti

• simonh 6y ago
  The Big Bang theory itself doesn't answer the question of where the Universe came from, but I don't think it's stilly to ask what happened 'before' the Big Bang, or when the size of the Universe was near or below the Planck Scale. Relativity by itself predicts a singularity at a finite time in the past, at the beginning of the Big Bang. We know from Quantum Mechanics that Relativity is not complete though so the origin of the Universe and the nature of time through that process is still up in the air.
  • mensetmanusman 6y ago
    How can one speak of the size of the universe before the big bang if the concept of space-time was created during the event?
    • simonh 6y ago
      How do you know the concept of space-time was created during the event though? That's just an assertion. This theory, and the theory of conformal cyclic cosmology proposed by Roger Penrose do not have that feature, for example.
    • MacsHeadroom 6y ago
      Size and progression do not require space or time. The quantity of nodes in a branching tree of causal events can grow larger without time or space if there is no reccurance for any given state to be compared to another. From the "gods eye view" the tree "grows" even if there's no internal information which can be used to recover any space/time prior to reccurance.
  • Ralfp 6y ago
    Scientific approach to the matter is actually simple: its scientifically impossible to research state before the big bang because no information from before original singularity is available. This makes question non-scientific. We have wiggle room for planck epoch because that time was after singularity, meaning that we have information from that time (however little of it is left). Closest we got to science here is by extending the time and space axis across the diagrams point of origin. This is where idea of singularity being in heart of higher level universe black hole (or past universe’s collapse) comes from. Its inpossible to verify black hole idea due to deletion of information, but collapse/crunch should be observable in distant future of the universe. Perhaps dark energy still has some tricks up its sleeve?
    • simonh 6y ago
      Roger Penrose disagrees, and it's possible he and some of his colleagues have identified circular features in the CMB which may have survived from a previous eon. The scientific approach is to keep an open mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology#Empirical_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology#Emp...
      • Ralfp 6y ago
        I truly dyslike when somebody uses that particular phrase, because it frames other participant as somehow close minded. The fact that Penrose’s work is possible and ongoing is proof enough that scientific discourse on the matter is open and possible.
        • nwienert 6y ago
          Well, you did try and close a door to a possibility. And you tried to frame that as being “scientific”. Yet, you cannot prove it. Science never has final say on what’s impossible. Until (if ever) we have a grand unified theory that perfectly coheres all we find and ever find, you cannot claim to know of an impossibility. For example, an easy proof you’re wrong would be simulation theories. In that case, the Big Bang is just a sub-simulation inside a bigger universe. Can you prove we aren’t in a simulation? If not, then you cannot make any claim about how it’s not scientific to talk about before the Big Bang. We just don’t know, so taking the positive is an error.