What was Before the Big Bang? An Identical, Reversed Universe
Written by Ian O'Neill
So what did exist before the Big Bang? This question would normally belong in the realms of deep philosophical thinking; the laws of physics have no right to probe beyond the Big Bang barrier. There can be no understanding of what was there before. We have no experience, no observational capability and no way of travelling back through it (we can't even calculate it), so how can physicists even begin to think they can answer this question? Well, a new study of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) is challenging this view, perhaps there is a way of looking into the pre-Big Bang "universe". And the conclusion? The Big Bang was more of a "Big Bounce", and the pre-bounce universe had the same physics as our universe… just backwards… Confused? I am…
LQG is a tough theory to put into words, but it basically addresses the problems associated with the incompatibilities behind quantum theory and general relativity, two crucial theories that characterize our universe. If these two theories are not compatible with each other, the search for the "Theory Of Everything" will be hindered, disallowing gravity to merge with the "Grand Unified Theory" (a.k.a. the electronuclear force). LQG quantizes gravity, thereby providing a possible explanation for gravity and a possible key to unlocking the Theory Of Everything. However, from the outset, LQG has many critics as there is little direct or indirect evidence backing up the theory.
See the previous Universe Today article on Loop Quantum Gravity»
Regardless, much work is being done into this area of research. The primary consequence to come from LQG is that it predicts that the Big Bang which occurred 13.7 billion years ago was actually a "Big Bounce"; our universe is therefore the product of a contracting universe before the Big Bang. The previous universe (or our universe "twin") contracted to a single point (which could be interpreted as a "Big Crunch") and then rebounded in a Big Bounce to produce the Big Bang as we've learned to accept as the birth of the universe as we know it. But until now, although the pre-bounce universe has been predicted, its characteristics could not be known. No information about the pre-bounce universe could be observed in today's universe, the Big Bounce causes a "cosmic amnesia", destroying all information of the previous universe.
Now, physicists Alejandro Corichi from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Parampreet Singh from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario are working on a simplified Loop Quantum Gravity (sLQG) theory where they approximate the value of the "quantum constraint", a key equation in the LQG theory. What happens next is a little surprising. From their calculations, it would appear that a universe, identical to our own, with identical mechanics, existed before the Big Bounce.
"…the twin universe will have the same laws of physics and, in particular, the same notion of time as in ours. The laws of physics will not change because the evolution is always unitary, which is the nicest way a quantum system can evolve. In our analogy, it will look identical to its twin when seen from afar; one could not distinguish them." – Parampreet Singh
We are not talking about an alternate dimension; we are talking about an identical universe with the same space-time and quantum characteristics as our own. If we look at our universe now (13.7 billion years post-bounce), it would be identical to the universe 13.7 billion years before the Big Bounce. The only difference being the direction of time would be opposite; the pre-bounce universe would be reversed.
"In the universe before the bounce, all the general features will be the same. It will follow the same dynamical equations, the Einstein's equations when the universe is large. Our model predicts that this happens when the universe becomes of the order 100 times larger than the Planck size. Further, the matter content will be the same, and it will have the same evolution. Since the pre-bounce universe is contracting, it will look as if we were looking at ours backward in time." – Parampreet Singh
Analysing what happened before the Big Bang is only part of the story. By making this approximation of a key LQG equation, Singh and Corichi are working on models where galaxies and other physical structures leave an imprint in the pre-bounce universe to influence the post-bounce universe. Would these structures be distributed in similar ways? Will the structures in one universe be similar or identical to structures in the other universe? There may also be an opportunity to look into the future of this universe and predict whether the conditions are right for another Big Bounce (once can imagine repeated bounces, producing a cycle of universes).
For now, this research is highly theoretical and any observational evidence will remain sparse for the time being. Although this is the case, it does begin to probe the big question and may push physics a bit closer toward describing what existed before the Big Bang…
Source: Physorg.com
Filed under: Cosmology, Physics
Related stories on Universe Today
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Wow, your bias is pretty evident. There's about the same amount of evidence for LQG as there is for string theory… ie not much.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I wasn't aware of a bias either way. Like string theory, loop quantum gravity is heavily theoretical. However, I'm very excited by the implications of both theories. I don't pretend to understand either in great depth, as you may have picked up in the text. Just reporting on the research, sharing my interest…
Cheers, Ian
April 14th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
This makes much more sense than the notion that everything appeared all at once from nothing. Perhaps after many trillions(?) of years, our universe will expand to a maximum and then begin to contract.
13.7 billion years may be only a tiny fraction of a half cycle.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
We'll see………..
April 14th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
No, ..we won't see. (Refering to above) .. unless, you have discovered some form of immortality?
The Theory is very interesting and makes much more sense then suddenly there was a bang and all this material appeared out of nothingness.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Wow, I hope I'm around another 80 years to follow this thought
April 14th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
For some reason, this reminds me of one of those conservation laws. If a particle at rest decays into several particles (say beta decay), they shoot off in different directions, but if you add up all their momentum, it is the same as the single particle at rest. Maybe it's a "conservation of time" law, just one universe exploding in one temporal direction would violate the law, but two exploding universes would conserve the "time momentum" or whatever.
Another thought: antimatter is mathmatically the time-reverse of regular matter (take a proton and run it backwards through time, it will behave like a normal anti-proton). Maybe this "twin universe" is made primarily of antimatter, further balancing out our matter-dominated universe.
Wow, I sound like a newage bilge artist or a writer for Doctor Who…
April 14th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
@Dan Tillmanns: Actually I don't think this makes any more or less sense than everything appearing "all at once from nothing". Until we actually understand the nature of the singularity of Big Bang in real, physical terms, it's all equally speculative. We understand that within out universe, matter/energy is conserved but not created from nothing, but that does not necessarily hold for beyond a state we do not yet understand, albeit in vague theoretical stabs.
I look forwards to learning more about all this in the years to come and maybe we'll understand these things within our life times. Maybe not. But, interesting though this for the imagination, it's not more realistic that any other purely theoretical idea to me.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Our physicist friends are fielding "Curiouser and curiouser!" theories. Maybe in a few more paradigm shifts a moment of epiphany will show us that proof and faith are one in the same…
April 14th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
The answer is 42
April 14th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
It would be helpful for the extremely long-term survival of our species if we could predict when and how the re-bounce, so to say, will happen so that we could prevent it.
The Fool
April 14th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
See, I told you that the universe expands and collapses over and over, and that everything (including you, the other beings you cannibalize, and the Empire State Building) happen over and over.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
An interesting idea, but even if there were a twin before our universe you still have the chicken/egg dilemma of how the very first universe (if there is such a thing) came to be.
Who made the maker(s)? Who baked the universal cake?
Lately I'm leaning towards the newer idea that our universe is essentially a virtual reality of a VR of a VR, etc. And I have less proof of this than I can shake a rolling pin at.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Can someone please explain how time can "run backwards" ?
April 15th, 2008 at 12:02 am
In the mirror universe, humans are born from decomposing matter, worms excrete flesh onto bones, frail bodies rise from the ground, gradually increasing in strength and vigour,reaching a peak about 20 years before their death. They are eventually sucked into the body of thier mother, where they are absorbed for 9 months, until the father siphons out the essence.
They eat excrement thru their arses, and excrete food thru their mouths, when it is taken to butchers shops and greengrocers to be made into animals and vegetables.
And Mankind's evolution began on myriad distant planets, eventually eventually leaving them and collecting together on Earth, gradually losing their technological skils and evolving into cavemen.
"Little acorns from giant oaks grow"
etc etc
Nobody else read Cryptozoic (aka 'An Age') by Brian Aldiss?
April 15th, 2008 at 12:13 am
My question is: How did beings in this Pre-Bounce universe percieve the passage of time?
Did they percieve it as progressing forward while physics showed them as going backwards, which would indicate that we will be able to see it coming (as they would have) when matter begins to progress backwards.
Or perhaps (I'm less fond of this one but it could be a possibility) they reached a critical point in technological advancement and all societies imploded in on themselves and destroyed each other?
Or maybe they lived lives backwards; people came out of the ground and grew younger and younger until they had a surgery performed to put them in the womb. They could continue to regress into a single-celled organism and them separate into sperm and egg during a reverse-sexual-intercourse act?
Or maybe Steve (above) is right. The answer could very well be 42. So long and thanks for all the fish.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:39 am
about the chicken egg dillemma :
My granma once told me:
"That is simple. The chicken came first, because if it was the egg that had come first no one would be there to sit on it so it would incubate."
That's all about. Keep an open mind and keep up the good work.
Answers are out there they just hang out with more questions.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:13 am
THERE WERE MANY BIG BANGS.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM, PEOPLE
DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT
ESPECIALLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
THERE IS NO START OR END
LOCAL YES UNIVERSAL NO!
April 15th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Current observations indicate that our universe is expanding at an increasing rate. Unless something (we don't yet understand) stopps this, I'm not quite sure how you get a bounce out of that. Nevertheless I look forward to tea at the restraunt at the end of the universe.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:04 am
WHAT ARE YOU YELLING AT TONY!!!
And for the record Tony, its still only theory. You cant justify it because physicist theorize about it. So bringing up things like the Catholic church isnt going to make this theory any more true or false.
I would like to the equations on ths. Any place showing? Or is it top secret work?
April 15th, 2008 at 6:39 am
umm…so what existed before the pre-bounce universe? did matter just POP into existence and then beginning counting down and compressing until the post bounce?
April 15th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Finally, something that went along with my idea of a constantly contracting and expanding universe. I first brought this up when the story about the latest estimate of the age of the universe came out about 3 weeks ago. A few comments ago somebody said it best that: "The Theory is very interesting and makes much more sense than suddenly there was a bang and all this material appeared out of nothingness."
The Big Bang sounds ok, but yeah, from a singularity that was one tenth the size of an atom (if I recall correctly) there was an explosion and from that we have all there is the universe.
I was never able to put much stock in the Big Bang since my Earth Science teacher in my freshman year of high school brought it up. (I'm 25 now)
Now that I know there's a theory along the lines of what I was thinking – that the universe possibly expands and contracts on a phenomenal time scale – I don't feel like such a kook anymore. Well maybe I'm still a kook, but not so alone in my opinions.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:19 am
If the universe is the result of a big bounce, then where did the pre-bounce universe come from? What caused it to contract?
What came before that? Still another universe that was expanding? That begs the question, what stopped the expansion? Is there some form of a cosmic stopwatch that reverses time every now and then?
It's an interesting thought experiment, but it can only be added to the pile of other pre-big bang theories, as there is no way to prove any of them. Asking what came before the big bang is like asking what's north of the north pole, according to Hawking.
This makes me wonder, is this pre-big bang universe simply a mirror image of our own? How would we know the difference?
April 15th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Take the red pill…
April 15th, 2008 at 7:47 am
See what Brian Green has to say in "The Elegant Universe" about quantum geometry, t-duality and the garden hose universe model. String theory gives a result that sounds very similar.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:14 am
If time proceeds and recedes at intervals, then our universe will follow suit. Even an ever-faster expanding universe will simply implode at slower and slower rates until the opposite of inflation when it will wink out of existence in a mere thousand years. Steve, thanks for the graphic imagery. Think I like the forward universe much better! I still wonder if we aren't just miniscule specks in an atomic sized universe in an even greater universe. Quantum particles keep getting smaller and more interesting, we should make sure we're listening for the "Whos" in the next smaller universe.
Horton
April 15th, 2008 at 8:22 am
This is like my own pet theory of everything. I'll have a crack at explaining it here although I'm not sure if I'll do it justice.
All matter in the universe tends toward accretion. Super clusters of Galaxies are made up of smaller clusters. Galaxies have discs made of stars who's discs it seems, often turn into planets, some of whom have rings and moons – anyone see a pattern here?
It doesn't make sense that everything in the universe is clumpy, rather than just being a bunch of individual grains of dust expanding away from each other on divergent paths. Imagine a bag of flour exploding in deep space, flinging it's grains in all directions faster than the escape velocity for the flour 'system'. How long would it take before you'd expect the grains of flour to clump together forming even small conglomerations of flour grains? That's right – NEVER – each grain is on a divergent path, never to meet again. If the universe is really an 'open' one it should be composed only of molecules or subatomic particles or pure energy.
So if this clumpy universe of ours really did expand from a singularity, why, that sounds pretty much like a black hole running backwards, doesn't it? Matter being regurgitated from a singularity. Given the fact that matter in our universe seems to like to clump together, eventually the fate of all matter must eventually be to get sucked back in to a singularity (black hole). What's left of the earth will surely eventually go down that big ol' gurgler at the middle of the milky way – and then what? Oops, there goes the Magellanic clouds. And Andromeda got a bit too close – oops there you go! And so on and so forth…
So I'm thinking here that the universe just vacillates back and forth. Singularity in forwards time is just called a black hole, singularity in reverse time is called a big bang. Everything starts with one and ends with the other. Whether you're traveling 'forwards' or 'backwards' through time is simply a matter of perspective. Same way a particle in forwards time behaves exactly the same an anti-particle in reverse. It's all just a matter of perspective.
There are two places we'll never be able to see, no matter how good our telescopes get – the edge of our universe, and beyond the event horizon of a black hole.
I'm thinking maybe they're the same thing. Matter falls into the black hole. That matter can no longer see anything of the universe from whence it came because of the event horizon now enclosing it. Relativity predicts an equal and opposite parralell universe inside a black hole with a second singularity with of exact opposite characteristics – a white hole where matter can only escape (in other words a big bang that can only exist with in the confines of the black hole's event horizon).
If our universe were born from a white hole singularity inside a black hole, it would look essentially the same, as we cannot see beyond the edge of our event horizon. As our black hole / universe absorbs more matter, the event horizon expands, which is analogous to the expansion of the universe itself.
It's already been theorized that micro black holes could behave exactly like normal atomic particles, as both are simply singularities. Perhaps they are the same thing and our universe is simply a seething mass of singularities of various scales moving in opposite directions on a timeline – one way for matter, the other for antimatter (or normal matter who's time happens to be running backwards).
This would also explain the rate and direction of time flow as experienced by us – it's a function of the mass contained within the event horizon of our universe/black hole. The more mass our universe accumulates, the slower time goes and the more the universe seems to accellerate in it's expansion.
It makes sense to me anyhow. I'm sure someone will shoot me down.
Cheers
-Markus
April 15th, 2008 at 8:43 am
yorrike: can someone please explain time?
April 15th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I've whimsically thought about our universe just existing in a small little trinket, much like in "Men In Black". It's a goofy little notion, but if you were to see how everything exists when you die, I would act as if I were on "Candid Camera" if that's how it really is. That whole "You gotta be kidding me!" thing.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Great opening Ian,
thanks for pointing to my client's idea of mirrored universe:
http://www.spacemirrormystery.com/
Keep up speculation Ian. we love you.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:45 am
If the Universe is cyclic, it seems to explain what the present Universe is expanding into, the 'space' vacated by the previous one. Perhaps there has never been a Universe Number '1'. Infinity may be the operational parameter in Universal cycles. Not a satisfactory 'logical' explanation but perhaps something to consider.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Zeb ,
Please,
define the phrase "mathematically the time -reverse of ordinary matter .'
April 15th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Tony, So where did the first matter come from? Exploding Over and Over just prolongs the same question in my humble opinion. Have a little grudge against Christianity?
Interesting research, but as others have said this has as much credence as monkeys partaking in flight from unspeakable areas.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:58 am
The religious nuts are not only trying to take over our government but also our science. Just take a look at that book–THE FINAL THEORY.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
It seems to me that people are mis-using the word theory. Here is the definition:
A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
My question is what observations were made of this "other universe"? This seems more like a hypothesis at best.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I have always had a very serious problem with science taking us back to a single particle. Where did the particle come from?
April 15th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
For that matter where did anything come from? How did anything start exsisting?
April 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Ive always thought that science is too philisophical about the big bang,
Ok, we can see 13.7 billion years away. But how does science know its not farther.
Some, believe or not, in the science community think that the whole 13 billion years theory is a religious statment.
I honestly cant have an opinion either way.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I don´t understand the picture above, is same like a filter, if the big bounce was that, i need to get same more deductive picture to turn possible understand the picture
April 15th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
hi konstantine. Thanks for the great answer on the chicken coming first. I'm using that from now on!
And If the chicken was first the pardox remains. Which I kind of like actually b/c it means science will never have all the answers and neither will religion. You end up having to decide what you do or don't believe. But the fact that we exist at all is some form of miracle, which you can take religiously or not.
Markus stone, I enjoyed reading your concept. I'm not a science dude so I don't know whether it is plausible or not but its interesting. I got hung up on the very last point you made about the universe appearing to accelerate but its actually time slowing. Can you elaborate to help my peanut brain? Thanks.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:04 am
There are a lot of contradictions in the subject, which is understandable given that it pushes against the edge of what can be understood scientifically. But the one that leaps out at me is that there can be no information observed from the past universe, yet its structures dictate the structures that appear in the following universe. Wouldn't that be a carrying over of information?
It also seems weird to think about time as something contained by the universe, and yet to try and imagine something 'before' the universe – it sorta breaks down, but I think I'm focussing on the strict semantics too much. This really does edge against the realm of spirituality as much as it does science. Fun stuff to think about, though – thanks for the writeup!
April 16th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Maybe the Universe is more like the contents inside of a lava lamp. It could be oozing into existence, stretching out, expanding, swelling up, with some parts of itself breaking off, forming yet smaller parts which then expand, or, contract, and even merge with other parts, infinitely.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am
It may just be that since we're of this universe, we'll never be able to understand or know what lies outside of it in a scientific way. All of our techniques and logic are based on the physics of the universe we live in. We may never know what was there before the Big Bang…
…I think all of this is in the realm of hypothesis until someone can find a way to test these ideas.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I"m gonna put my 2 cents in and say that this is a numbers game only. Until we find physical evidence, which good scientists will do. I look forward to ideas on how to test this theory, and their results!
April 17th, 2008 at 6:46 am
If time did not exist before our universe began, then there is no "before" the big bang.
There is no way we can know how the universe worked before that, because our very ways of thinking are a result of the current post-bang universe. We simply are not capable of understanding the events before, because there is no "before" for us to perceive.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:54 am
good point
April 21st, 2008 at 8:34 am
all very interesting but where did the very first bit of energy or matter come from?
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
This is all very nice and all very speculative. What caused this expansion and contraction in the first place? I mean, without bringing in "god" and the rest of that baggage.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 am
nothing like avoiding the question by giving a mirror image of the delima. They wont answer the question "what was before the Big Bang? " they just give a mirror image of the Big BAng to avoid answering it.
what was before this quantum copy of the Big Bang? Try running in the funny room with the maze of mirrors and ask a evolutionist that question. Its a madness they give to avoid answering.
Nothing creates nothing. rewind the big bang movie in your mind. There had to be a start and the start needs an intelligent Creator. "In the begginning God created the heavens and the earth"
May 7th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Utter total garbage. Get a life!
June 13th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Markus Stone writes: "must read"
So if this clumpy universe of ours really did expand from a singularity, why, that sounds pretty much like a black hole running backwards, doesn't it? Matter being regurgitated from a singularity. Given the fact that matter in our universe seems to like to clump together, eventually the fate of all matter must eventually be to get sucked back in to a singularity (black hole). What's left of the earth will surely eventually go down that big ol' gurgler at the middle of the milky way – and then what? Oops, there goes the Magellanic clouds. And Andromeda got a bit too close – oops there you go! And so on and so forth…
So I'm thinking here that the universe just vacillates back and forth. Singularity in forwards time is just called a black hole, singularity in reverse time is called a big bang. Everything starts with one and ends with the other. Whether you're traveling 'forwards' or 'backwards' through time is simply a matter of perspective. Same way a particle in forwards time behaves exactly the same an anti-particle in reverse. It's all just a matter of perspective.
I'm thinking maybe they're the same thing. Matter falls into the black hole. That matter can no longer see anything of the universe from whence it came because of the event horizon now enclosing it. Relativity predicts an equal and opposite parallel universe inside a black hole with a second singularity with of exact opposite characteristics – a white hole where matter can only escape (in other words a big bang that can only exist within the confines of the black hole's event horizon).
If our universe were born from a white hole singularity inside a black hole, it would look essentially the same, as we cannot see beyond the edge of our event horizon. As our black hole / universe absorbs more matter, the event horizon expands, which is analogous to the expansion of the universe itself.
It's already been theorized that micro black holes could behave exactly like normal atomic particles, as both are simply singularities. Perhaps they are the same thing and our universe is simply a seething mass of singularities of various scales moving in opposite directions on a timeline – one way for matter, the other for antimatter (or normal matter who's time happens to be running backwards).
Markus,
I agree with you and I'm thinking as the same as you are with the black holes. Maybe we came from a black hole that had back fired. Why are we finding more and more black holes? I do think the birth of our universe has something to do with the black holes. Does it seem that there is a black hole in every solar system? What happens (if) all these black holes and matter becomes one big black hole? Are we a universe made an existing universe????
I do think it all does have something to do with the black holes, but the question is how did it all start???
Markus, I think you have excellent points which I do agree with and thinking on the same level as you. Excellent!!!!
Mark
June 14th, 2008 at 1:13 am
I'm no conquerer of ignorance, in fact I'm quite ravaged by it, but I wonder why people don't see religion as inferior intelligence. For example trying to cut down a tree with a knife, they have much more efficient means of accomplishing that now (chainsaws), so isn't science the progressing intelligence of existence, making religion a failed hypothesis? Does anyone honestly think that people back then had the capacity to confirm their assumptions? I think the people who created religion as a means to tame people, pooped behind bushes. It seems to me they just didn't have the technology to comprehend the world around them so they came up with whatever might comfort those best to deal with death and keep everyone from running amuck. Could it be the religious creators we just mere children in the evolution of intelligence? It seems obvious to me…
I'm not hating on religion I just see it as nothing more than wishful thinking and an out of date idea…
so maybe this point we are at now is another stage of understanding, trial and error. Its good to have options, process of elimination will eventually find the answer so long as there are minds hungry enough for it.
For those who still cling to religion, I think they're just affraid to abanndon their belief for the fear of being ignorant, or maybe they just don't want to accept the end and have to rely on the after life to console their anxiety.
These new ideas are just the next step to the answer, there can only be so many ideas and with the race for it growing ever faster, eventually someone will find the evidence to solidify one of these hypothesis. That's life, understanding, and there's plenty of it. I don't know the inner workings of the big bang, but it makes me think, and gives me a warm fuzzy feeling in my heart to appreciate the actual fact of being aware of such important information. Its nice to be informed, so thanks for this mind opening discussion, I have certainly enjoyed absorbing all this and sorting it out in the logical file cabinet. Aren't we all just like the kid that keeps asking why. Why? Because its human nature. That's all I know. Thanks for enduring my ramblings, I feel better now. Good luck in life everyone :-j
June 18th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Conservation of 4-space momentum for both universes
Wait. does this mean an identical "me" is being subjected to a preposterous amount of BS on a daily basis but in reverse?
Or is the reverse relative and I am the one going in reverse? and I though I was moving ahead in life!
Has physics explained all the anti-entropy machines running around this planet yet?
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:50 am
Untill someone fits gravity into quantum mechanics its hard to take this to seriously. The absence of gravity from quantum theory is the equivalent of not understanding dirt and its relation to plants.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
where would the universe get too before it started to contract again, and whats on the other side of that threshold
July 17th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
man i like dave chapelle too. he is so funny
October 12th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
a lot of you ppl have really good points.
however, the multiple theories concerning pre-big bang will be very difficult to prove. i think the answer would be too complex for any human to thorughouly comprehend. it would be nice to somewhat understand the greatest mysteries of the universe, but maybe were not meant to know them. if there are other solar systems in our universe that contain other planets than hold intelligent life, then perhaps there are other universes beyound ours. anything is possible.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I don't have much difficulty imagining what came before the big bang anymore than I have trouble imagining where I was for 13+ billion years. Space and time were created by the big bang. There simply was nothing prior to that – as far as we know.
And if we eventually learn otherwise, great!
December 18th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Before the big bang and the universe, there was only God.
December 31st, 2008 at 10:13 pm
It seems likely that we can never know about what, if anything, preceded the big bang. On the other hand, it is only relatively recently that science has learned that there was a big bang. The Idea of a cyclical universe seems much more likely to me than the possibility that at one moment nothing existed and a moment later the big bang occurred. The concept of big crunches and big bounces seems much more in keeping with what we know about how nature works.
I'd like to add another thought to ponder. It seems likely to me that if we learn that the universe is, indeed, cyclical, we will later learn that there are other cyclical universes and these universes are parts of a larger system. Ultimately, we will accept the realization that existence is infinitely complex. Beginnings and creations are human concepts. The nature of nature is infinite complexity.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Universe=White=Mirror=Opposite= Big Bang therefore white none expanding…….
March 4th, 2009 at 6:01 am
Just a little thought:
Here's a suggestion (speculation) that before the big bang, there was (probably) a big bounce. So what did we have before the 'big bounce'? Another 'Big b…..' I suppose?
March 13th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Would this mean that our universe will eventually expand to a certain point and then start getting smaller until another big bang occurred? The universe created from this big bang would follow the same pattern: grow, shrink, and "bang." Is it a never ending pattern?
April 17th, 2009 at 3:54 am
Why do the theists always hav e to post their drivel when constructive debates are on hand.
I never post on their sites. (By the way, where are their sites? Revenge!)