Thinking About Time Before the Big Bang

by Nancy Atkinson on June 13, 2008


What happened before the Big Bang? The conventional answer to that question is usually, “There is no such thing as ‘before the Big Bang.’” That’s the event that started it all. But the right answer, says physicist Sean Carroll, is, “We just don’t know.” Carroll, as well as many other physicists and cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the Big Bang, as well as alternative theories of how our universe came to be. Carroll discussed this type of “speculative research” during a talk at the American Astronomical Society Meeting last week in St. Louis, Missouri.

“This is an interesting time to be a cosmologist,” Carroll said. “We are both blessed and cursed. It’s a golden age, but the problem is that the model we have of the universe makes no sense.”

First, there’s an inventory problem, where 95% of the universe is unaccounted for. Cosmologists seemingly have solved that problem by concocting dark matter and dark energy. But because we have “created” matter to fit the data doesn’t mean we understand the nature of the universe.

Another big surprise about our universe comes from actual data from the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) spacecraft which has been studying the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) the “echo” of the Big Bang.

“The WMAP snapshot of how the early universe looked shows it to be hot, dense and smooth [low entropy] over a wide region of space,” said Carroll. “We don’t understand why that is the case. That’s an even bigger surprise than the inventory problem. Our universe just doesn’t look natural.” Carroll said states of low-entropy are rare, plus of all the possible initial conditions that could have evolved into a universe like ours, the overwhelming majority have much higher entropy, not lower.

But the single most surprising phenomenon about the universe, said Carroll, is that things change. And it all happens in a consistent direction from past to future, throughout the universe.

“It’s called the arrow of time,” said Carroll. This arrow of time comes from the second law of thermodynamics, which invokes entropy. The law states that invariably, closed systems move from order to disorder over time. This law is fundamental to physics and astronomy.

One of the big questions about the initial conditions of the universe is why did entropy start out so low? “And low entropy near the Big Bang is responsible for everything about the arrow of time” said Carroll. “Life and death, memory, the flow of time.” Events happen in order and can’t be reversed.

“Every time you break an egg or spill a glass of water you’re doing observational cosmology,” Carroll said.

Therefore, in order to answer our questions about the universe and the arrow of time, we might need to consider what happened before the Big Bang.

Carroll insisted these are important issues to think about. “This is not just recreational theology,” he said. “We want a story of the universe that makes sense. When we have things that seem surprising, we look for an underlying mechanism that makes what was a puzzle understandable. The low entropy universe is clue to something and we should work to find it.”

Right now we don’t have a good model of the universe, and current theories don’t answer the questions. Classical general relativity predicts the universe began with a singularity, but it can’t prove anything until after the Big Bang.

Inflation theory, which proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments, is no help, Carroll said. “It just makes the entropy problem worse. Inflation requires a theory of initial conditions.”

There are other models out there, too, but Carroll proposed, and seemed to favor the idea of multi-universes that keep creating “baby” universes. “Our observable universe might not be the whole story,” he said. “If we are part of a bigger multiverse, there is no maximal-entropy equilibrium state and entropy is produced via creation of universes like our own.”

Carroll also discussed new research he and a team of physicists have done, looking at, again, results from WMAP. Carroll and his team say the data shows the universe is “lopsided.”

Measurements from WMAP show that the fluctuations in the microwave background are about 10% stronger on one side of the sky than on the other.

An explanation for this “heavy-on-one-side universe” would be if these fluctuations represented a structure left over from the universe that produced our universe.

Carroll said all of this would be helped by a better understanding of quantum gravity. “Quantum fluctuations can produce new universes. If thermal fluctuation in a quiet space can lead to baby universes, they would have their own entropy and could go on creating universes.”

Granted, — and Carroll stressed this point — any research on these topics is generally considered speculation at this time. “None of this is firmly established stuff,” he said. “I would bet even money that this is wrong. But hopefully I’ll be able to come back in 10 years and tell you that we’ve figured it all out.”

Admittedly, as writer, trying to encapsulate Carroll’s talk and ideas into a short article surely doesn’t do them justice. Check out Carroll’s take on these notions and more at his blog, Cosmic Variance. Also, read a great summary of Carroll’s talk, written by Chris Lintott for the BBC. I’ve been mulling over Carroll’s talk for more than a week now, and contemplating the beginnings of time — and even that there might be time before time — has made for an interesting and captivating week. Whether that time has brought me forward or backward in my understanding remains to be seen!

Nancy Atkinson is Universe Today's Senior Editor. She also is the host of the NASA Lunar Science Institute podcast and works with the Astronomy Cast and 365 Days of Astronomy podcasts. Nancy is also a NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador.

  • Larrys

    What if science proved without a doubt there is a God? Would you atheists accept it?

  • Chuck R.

    “Please if you atheists can believe in the theory or countless universes poping into existance, why not believe in one where there is a heaven and a hell.”

    Namely because you’re attempting to take one theory regarding a calculable possibility of multiple realities that would exist overall in the same function as this one we know and say the fairy tales of the Bible should be allowed credence, no, not just allowed credence but RULE in THIS existence due to a make-believe chance there might be some parallel where they exist. The problems in that notion are unending, its very ‘fantasy writing’ of you to suggest. But, then, you are into that Bible now aren’t you. Snide, I know, but it’s well deserved, sorry. And I realize you’re one of those holy text thumpers that must immediately attack at any angle to those who don’t believe in ‘God’ or the Bible (not so much the other Gods, Goddesses, mystical creatures that were once facts, not the Odins, the Cerberus, the Heras, the Vishnus or Wraiths, right – those would just be CRAZY!), but to even attempt and speak of the word theory (an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations) as though its a scientific form of faith (a belief in an assumed truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that is characteristically held without proof) is ludicrous.

    “We do not have to take Genesis as but a type.”

    I’m not entirely sure what you mean with “take it as but a type”, but I do hope you’re not implying (like many other Christians who are compromised in their beliefs do nowadays) that Genesis is not to be taken as fact. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I agree and would immediately take that notion to any of the supernatural acts or authority over man the rest of the Bible claims as well. But what I’m saying is that in modern times the lax grasp on Genesis as a work of God is detrimental to the Christian. Actually, as has been said multiple times, you – as a Christian – MUST take Genesis quite literally. Adam’s sin isn’t to be held, by Christians – that is, as some metaphorical item, as some poetic decline in man. It’s a sin, it’s THE sin that kick started it all. For ANY of the validity in hate against ‘sin’ & ‘evil’, the curse brought that brought death, sickness, degeneration and all the other little bad things into (what’s claimed to be) “all creation” (that’s all the universe) by Adam, Adam’s sin MUST be true or Jesus died for no reason at all. For Adam’s sin to be true, Genesis MUST be literal in its reading. The Bible states generation after generation, the lineage of mankind from cover to cover, marking events to have transpired in just a few thousand years. So some five or six thousand years ago, for the Bible and its claims in the ways of life to be held authoritative and true, the Earth MUST have been created before the rest of the universe, hell – before the Sun even. And in turn Adam, the first human MUST have been created just a few thousand years ago from dirt. He MUST have sinned against the Lord (by simply eating of an apple from a tree that perhaps God wasn’t so wise to place in the garden in the first place, by the way) and brought this curse into existence that made some plants spring forth thorns, and some animals grow meat-eating sharp teeth, and brought death into the creation, and so on and so forth. All ‘sin’, death, carnivororism, sickness, etc MUST have been instigated by this. THIS is what YOUR Bible says. If for even a moment you try to apply the notion with “that section’s not literal” then the entire meaning becomes worthless. There is no sin Adam committed, there was death eons before Eden, and there is no justification for your religion. So, way to stand up for your religion. Allowing a doubt in the authority of the text you thump, a possibility that Genesis isn’t literal perhaps, so you can gain ground? So that a sudden possibility of science can prevail and you trample the validity of the text you worship? If you’re going to attempt to be a devout Christian, one that screams his God’s authority and will from that soapbox, you cannot allow a doubt in your scriptures. Not ever. And that is why things like the Big Bang and evolution will never fit with your God’s claims. For if the Big Bang did occur, and the universe expanded until a disc formed around one tiny yellow star, and over the millennia the dust & eventual rocks came to form the planets, and on one of them through millions of years of evolution (that’s a lot of death, natural worldwide disasters, and eating of flesh) before even the first man came to be, then there was no sin from Adam, no perfectly clean & innocent paradise to be thrown from, no evils for Christ to have died for, and no authority from the text you claim to worship. And can I just say its sad that the majority of arguments that seem to go on between atheists and Christians go about like this? Where the atheist knows both his truth and the truth the Christian side should be speaking from better than the Christian themself?

    “At some time in man’s existance he made a decision of good or evil.”

    You mean socially acceptable and socially unacceptable. That varies on year, location, age, genetics, cultures etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, since our ancestors first began their stride from herds to tribes. What’s good and what’s bad is different from person to person, country to country, era to era. Everyone is the way they are, period. Like animals, we have social groups and the more unpopular behaviors become undesirable, illegal or “sinful”. For someone to change to fit in, such as with Christian groups, is it not denying what they really are? What God has DESIGNED them to be? If they don’t fall in line with these outdated notions, then they’re to be punished eternally for that? Is that ever rich. If so then there is no compassion for humanity from Him. Just because this “Satan” convinced the first two people to eat an apple doesn’t mean they are suddenly sinful. They are the way God made them. They are “flawed” and “sinful” because of Him and His design. They have NO reason to be held maliciously accountable for what HE made of them. And if something as simple as eating a fruit would bring the Fall and the Curse into all existence, I must demand the logic behind God putting that tree in the Garden of Eden in the first place.

    “Wouln’t Ocman’s Razor conclude that everything being equal it would be easier to believe that an Almighty force that we Christians call God created time by willing it to be so.”

    *Sigh* OCCAM’S or OCKHAM’S Razor is a 14th-century created principle that states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. You’re talking about observational, testable scientific theory versus grand invisible man in the sky. Eliminating science from your existence phenomenon because you feel it will make no difference or valid prediction in this existence phenomenon’s explanation is a giant crock of dumb. Sorry. In science, where Occam’s razor is used as a rule of thumb more than anything, the principle is utilized in guiding scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. Occam’s Razor, I’m afraid, doesn’t suddenly allow for the magical fiction of the Christian’s & Catholic’s Bible to true/possible.

    “As for me, I will believe in God , my Savior Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, that God who is Spirit ,gives me. I am not perfect and sin but I know if I have a choice I will be happy and not like you bunch of hatful atheists.”

    Yikes! Two things.

    Number one, so you believe in God, Jesus, el spiritu santo, and additionally you say you’re not perfect and that you sin. Now, nevermind for a minute that continuing lack of God, a divine Jesus, or the Holy Spirit in reality where us mortals (and you) all dwell; Per your Bible I am going to Hell and you (let’s say) will be going to Heaven. Right? Why is that? Because you’ve been forgiven? Because you asked if it was okay that you’re not perfect? That you’re exactly what He made you to be? God supposedly cannot withstand the presence of a sinful person (which denotes a lack of almighty), and yet that’s part of the Christian ideal, no? That you’ve been forgiven. You’re a sinful human, imperfect, but he’s forgiven you so you get to be in His presence? You’re not perfect, just forgiven, right? But why? What makes you think you’re forgiven? What makes you believe you need even ask for forgiveness for being exactly what He both made of you and knew what you would come to be? Eh? Takes us right back to that sin bit.

    And two, for the love of your own God, for future reference do feel free to stop typing (or if in person, stop talking) the moment you feel the need to place a word like “hate” on anyone else outside of your religion. It’s wrong on so many levels. For giggles, I’m apparently going to Hell when I die. That’s Hell, this fiery inferno of pain & suffering set to last all eternity that was created by YOUR GOD. I mean, I could ask things like, why should I go to Hell? What do I have to be forgiven for? Why should I be punished in the first place? For being exactly what I am? But it all boils back down to “God HATES me because I don’t fit His profile”. And how can you believe God to not be hateful himself, but totally compassionate when something such as Hell even exists? And this Holy God is the same one that supported war for a time in the Old Testament, yes? The same one that subjected a dear man and faithful follower to every bad thing in the book with Job. Oh sure, He rewarded him, what, ten fold later yeah? But where’s the holiness in killing off a man’s wife and children, his stock, plaguing him, all to prove a point? To another fallen and entirely ‘evil’ creation of His own no less! Batting a thousand! What did the wife and children do? I’m, for one anyway, getting some mixed signals here. Would you argue such behavior, documented in your own holy book, does not denote a sense of worthlessness and hate for humanity if He does such things? Oh, I know, you’re all about that ever-popular “I’ve been taught to hate the sin, not the sinner, and been brought up to love everyone, enemy or friend.” To this I have to inquire, “Even though it says in the Bible cling to that which is good, HATE that which is evil?” A biblical promotion of hate. Gotta love it. People have been killed and persecuted in the name of God, the name of Jesus, and the assumed authority of the Bible since the religion began. Millions of dead folks. And I’m not speaking of Bible thumping followers killed in the dark ages for believing in Christ, but the killing in the name of God, holy wars, massacres throughout our history before, during and after the Bible’s publication (what, you don’t recall Jericho or one of the uses with the Ark of the Covenant?), and the persecution against those who do not believe or didn’t fit in both in olden times and today. Don’t dare speak to other people as though your religion is clean, pristine and good. In case you’ve never paid attention, it’s not all peace & love, pal. Christianity has caused more pain, suffering and death than you can apparently imagine, and is a ministry of intolerance, hate and bigotry wrapped in lies and fairy tales. But I guess in the end it’s easier to open your mouth and praise Jesus if you don’t know and don’t care about the finer points and facts of the matter.

    “What if science proved without a doubt there is a God? Would you atheists accept it?”

    If science were to somehow prove someday that there is a form of entity sitting outside the universe, or streaming throughout it, guiding the winds of fate, enforcing karma, etc, I would happily accept proof positive as fact. But that being would obviously work in the same reality, the same rules, the same cycles as our world and as the rest of the universe does. The biblical God, the being written of in the Bible that speaks, that punishes with eternal damnation, that has no trouble with hypocrisy when it comes from his rulebook, that has no apparent compassion, foresight or true power in modern day, the one that is used to promote ignorance & intolerance by the book-thumping followers of his related religion; He cannot exist, he does not exist, he is an impossibility.

    And, end note back atcha for giggles; What if science proved without a doubt there is a God, and it’s Brahman? Would you Christians accept it?

  • Mars A. Saurian

    Doubtful. The collective knowledge of science proves the Bible’s claims false and look at them now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/gabrtie3 Gabriel Abille

    i just watched a family guy episode where they teleport and find out that they created big bang, now im just thinking what it was like before the bigbang

Previous post:

Next post: