I was watching Horizon on iplayer yesterday and this got me thinking, what was before the big bang? To answer this first we must ask “What is the Big Bang?”:
Every object in the night sky we can observe has emitted some form of EM radiation, this is how we can observe it! So we can measure the speed of such an observable in much the same way the police can measure the speed of your car; using the Doppler effect. If we measure the Doppler effect, also called redshift (as visible light is shifted in the direction of the red-part of the spectrum), for each body in the sky and then plot this against distance from us we get a remarkable result:
The further things are from us, the faster they go! Not only that but this relationship is clearly linear. What does this imply?
It implies that the universe is expanding and that if the universe is expanding can we not extrapolate backwards and find a point from which everything in the universe has expanded from? The answer is yes and no. YES we can extrapolate backwards, but NO we can’t find a single point from which the Universe has expanded from. We can’t because the whole of space is expanding, so the point from which everything is expanding is everywhere! This means that space and time originate from one point, which is called a singularity.
This is the Big Bang Theory.
What I was interested in after watching the programme was what Sir Roger Penrose said. RP used to think that “before the big bang” is an illogical statement, there is no before as the big bang is the start of time, before time there was no time. However RP has changed his way of thinking that the universe expands and expands and eventually thermal equilibrium is reached. This temperature of the universe is less than the temperature at which black holes radiate, so black holes heat up the universe until everything is energy i.e. no matter. When there is no matter there is no time and when there is no time it is impossible to measure space and so you are back to the beginning of a singularity containing all the mass in the universe.
Watch the big man explain it himself here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OutKE3tyG94
But now after watching the above lecture I am back to where I was at the start: The conventional wisdom that asking the question “what was before the big bang?” is a meaningless question. However I do still think that RP’s notion is quite beautiful.
16/10/2010 at 9:51 pm |
Universe began because nothing does not exist
18/04/2012 at 5:11 am |
Wrong equation! Nothing does not exist. universe exists. Therefore an existence came from non-existence which doesnt make sense. It HAS to have a beginning point. We CANT just throw away the fundamental laws of nature and science and ignore the basics: cause and effect theory.it HAS TI have a cause, which in turn creates an eternal loop. Our minds struggle to digest this thus many theories come out. It HAS to BE created fir it to balance out.
20/04/2012 at 8:40 pm
time started when universe began
20/04/2012 at 8:45 pm
nothing is not space
20/04/2012 at 8:51 pm
Nothing does not exist. Without space, there can be no distance between start points: thus there is one point of origin, too
20/10/2010 at 2:54 pm |
Yes Hubbles observation screwed up Einsteins cosmological constant and some are still trying to tweak it with things like P vac attributing an negative energy value to the vacuum of space which could trap them in the inverse gambler’s fallacy. The fallacy of concluding on the basis of an unlikely outcome of a random process, that the process is likely to have occurred many times before. For example, if one observes in roulette, black hitting eight times in succession, it is wrong to suppose that this lends any support to the hypothesis that that same black sequence has happened before.
21/10/2010 at 7:47 pm |
Before the Big Bang was a good programme that gave stimulating ideas.
BUT alas it fell into the same old problem of misleading the public.
Throughout the programme, it stated that Hubble measured the recessional velocities of galaxies and thus we have expansion.
Hubble did no such thing.
Photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when these same photons set off. Hubble measured how much longer that wavelength was.
THAT IS IT.
To say that this is attributed to expansion is an idea which is not necessarily correct.
I for one think it wrong.
My opinion is that photons of light lose energy as they travel through the universe.
As they lose energy their frequency reduces (E=hf)
If the frequency reduces the wavelength increases (c=f[lambda])
ergo redshifted.
http://wwwlyndonashmore.com
Cheers,
lyndon
13/11/2010 at 10:40 am |
The more I think about the various theories presented in this Horizon the more it seems that these cosmologists are like the “Blind men and the elephant”. For example, with the Eternal Inflation paradigm, ignoring the regions where expansion has slowed, isn’t it similar to the period between universes in Penrose’s Conformal cycles. And couldn’t Brane theory be used to provide a substrate for any of the other theories. They could have mostly been talking about different perspectives on the same thing.
All very interesting, but we mustn’t forget (as this episode of Horizon chose to) that it’s still highly speculative when we’re not even sure that the redshifts are caused by real changes in distance between objects in the universe. As Lyndon Ashmore points out above it all hinges on knowing what happens to the frequency of photons that are billions of years old; can anyone ever really know?
When Horizon showed the Hubble graph and said there’s something wrong with it I thought “at last”, but then they went on to discuss distance and time with no mention that the Hubble graph actually shows a correlation between red-shifts and luminosity.
It feels like modern cosmology is built like a house of cards on very weak foundations. But that might still be a good thing because, whatever observational data comes up in the future, hopefully somebody’s speculations will prove valuable in interpreting it; even if the house of cards falls down and we have to start again with a new one.
09/12/2010 at 1:51 am |
I still quite like the Conformal cyclic cosmology Model. Although I may just like Sir Roger Penrose. It is also just a theory…
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9032000/9032626.stm
18/04/2012 at 4:49 am |
The question is a valid one ‘what happened before the big bang because we follow the rules of nature to understand our universe. We know about the cause and effect theory which is very comprehensable. We deduce whilst applying this theory we go back to the singular point from which the big bang originates. This in turn creates a dilemma for us intellectual human beings. We understand that for the singular point to be in existence, it needs to have a cause, which of course would determine an everlasting loop. This is where the dilema begins. As intellectuals, our minds cannot accept this, it doesnt make sense to us. a)eternal loop : it has to have a beginning point, that CANT happen unless u have a cause which in turn creates the loop. The problem IS: IT CANT COME FROM NOTHING. That DONT make sense at all. This is where all the ‘ theories ‘ start coming into it, to twry explaining it ignoring the laws of nature and science. Nature explained it perfectly untill that singular Point. Because humans cannot accept realistically an eternal loop prior to the big bang, ut rejects the idea naturally. Only way forward is to re-analyze whats happening and use the laws if nature and science and try balancing the equation naturally. There is only one logical answer which the brain accepts and digests easily. IT HAS TO BE CREATED. This balances the equation perfectly. Which also brings God into the equation. ‘ WERE THEY CREATED FROM NOTHING, OR ARE THEY THEMSELVES THE CREATOR? OR DID THEY CREATE THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH? ‘ ( a verse from the Holy Quran). GOD claims He has created the singular point. ‘God is He who has created the heavens AND THE earth’- a statement made many times in the Quran. It is now self explanatory without moving away frm the laws of science. If you want ti know more then read the Quran.GOD TALKS ABOUT HIMSELF. Thank you.
25/11/2012 at 5:06 am |
He thinks himself somebody, but we think him nobody.He seems at little nervous.May I ask some questions? The number 13 bus will take you to the hospital.I like all kinds of fruit.Not only did I know her, but I was her best friend.Not only did I know her, but I was her best friend.Did you enter the contest? Long time no see!The teams are coming onto the field.