What was our universe before the Big Bang?

originally posted by: chrisjemac50
Aren't we also talking about a hyper space with membranes floating and sometimes touching each other. Creating a Big Bang. So if that's so than I would ask what's behind hyper space. Ahhh now I get brain pain I have to get some food and drinks and let this sinc in. 😎😂😎

It doesn't matter, if it is outside of our universe then it is not something we can comprehend. How do you comprehend something from nothing, how do you comprehend no beginning or end, no time at all?

We can get into God made the universe, then who made God so on and so on...think about it, nothing that has no beginning or an end.

a reply to: Judy21

I think the Big Crunch was before the Big Bang and the Big Crunch will precede the next Big Bang.

a reply to: Judy21

I don't know what to think. I enjoy reading everyone else's theories though. From looking into what the big crunch is, I would say that happened which caused the big bang. Now the universe is expanding until it snaps back and heads for another big crunch.

Love this thread.

We can only speculate on the age of the universe. We see but a tiny portion of all that is. if you could travel 13 billion light years away and use the most powerful telescope you would see more stars. Our view of the cosmos is very finite the better the tech the farther we see and re-age the universe.

I think it's probably easier to comprehend the Big Bang if you visualize it like this:


The "bang" part is the singularity in the center. What keeps it going? What keeps it expanding? The energy released by imagination.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: blackcrowe
And even the greatest brains of our time can only hypothesise.

The greatest brains make up greatest fairy tales.

Yeah, like the Quantum fluctuation one - that the BB singularity just came out of quantum fluctuation.

As far as I know, quantum fluctuation means that supersymmetrically opposite virtual particles appear and usually disappear as they annihilate back to nothing, but sometimes the vparticles are kept apart and then matter and forces can come into existence.

Which is a great idea, except that you need matter and forces to keep the vparticles from annihilating - you can't get matter and forces until you already have significant matter and forces.

Not to mention that Pauli Exclusion prevents the vparticles from occupying the same spatial coordinates (like everything in a singularity does) and there is no non-zero solution to the Schrodinger equation when the inputs are zero.

A Fairy Tale - unrealistic unscientific and contrary to known science (I have even heard Hawking describe it in lectures, as if it were a fact).

originally posted by: CJCrawley
Before the Big Bang was the previous universe.

The present universe was born from the death of the previous.

So, all this incredibly unlikely stuff, has always been happening, forever, for no reason, again and again and again and...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Judy21

One theory is there was a "big crunch"

Basically everything in the previous universe was smashed into infinite density... after which came La Big bang...

Wash, rinse, repeat

I'll go with that idea

But, then, this universe breaks the mold because it is topologically flat and will expand forever. This will tend towards maximum entropy and the outer edges of the universe will keep expanding out beyond the ability of its energy to ever be able to travel far or fast enough to get back to rest of the universe.

So, no big crunch. Which means a cosmologically oscillating universe is not happening.

Similarly, if the universe were infinite in time and space, there would always be light coming from a star, no matter where we looked in the sky. It would be uniformly bright. So the universe can't just have 'always been'.

This means both a starting point and no oscillatory rinse and repeat.

a reply to: chr0naut

As far as I know, quantum fluctuation means that supersymmetrically opposite virtual particles appear and usually disappear as they annihilate back to nothing, but sometimes the vparticles are kept apart and then matter and forces can come into existence.

I saw a program where they tried to make a vacuum by removing everything from a space and then they used very sensitive cameras to watch what was happening inside the vacuum and what they witnessed was 'virtual' particles appearing and disappearing.
It was like seeing a tv screen with appearing and disappearing pixels.
Is that not what is happening to produce what is appearing now as apparent reality?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut

As far as I know, quantum fluctuation means that supersymmetrically opposite virtual particles appear and usually disappear as they annihilate back to nothing, but sometimes the vparticles are kept apart and then matter and forces can come into existence.

I saw a program where they tried to make a vacuum by removing everything from a space and then they used very sensitive cameras to watch what was happening inside the vacuum and what they witnessed was 'virtual' particles appearing and disappearing.
It was like seeing a tv screen with appearing and disappearing pixels.
Is that not what is happening to produce what is appearing now as apparent reality?

The virtual particles created by quantum fluctuation are far smaller than a camera or even an electron microscope could capture.

Here's more on what is called Casimir effect - Wikipedia that explains what I am talking about.

originally posted by: chr0naut
A Fairy Tale - unrealistic unscientific and contrary to known science (I have even heard Hawking describe it in lectures, as if it were a fact).

In the film 'The Theory of Everything' - life story of Stephen Hawking - he starts off believing in the big bang and wrote that book (which I read many years ago) but by the end of the film he admits to his wife that he no longer believed in the theory - he said it's boundless. No start, no end.

originally posted by: chr0naut

The virtual particles created by quantum fluctuation are far smaller than a camera or even an electron microscope could capture.

Here's more on what is called Casimir effect - Wikipedia that explains what I am talking about.

Yes , thanks for that..........it is a little bit over my head.
What I am trying to say is that they have found that something does appear out of nothing.

a reply to: CJCrawley

originally posted by: CJCrawley
Before the Big Bang was the previous universe.

The present universe was born from the death of the previous.

There is the idea by physicist Paul Davies that a black hole forms a new universe.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: chr0naut

The virtual particles created by quantum fluctuation are far smaller than a camera or even an electron microscope could capture.

Here's more on what is called Casimir effect - Wikipedia that explains what I am talking about.

Yes , thanks for that..........it is a little bit over my head.
What I am trying to say is that they have found that something does appear out of nothing.

Yes it does appear to arise from nothingness, but it returns to nothingness, too. This means that overall nothing comes from nothing but you can get something if there are some fairly extreme force gradients (eg, the mechanism which creates Hawking radiation - Wikipedia).

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: chr0naut

The virtual particles created by quantum fluctuation are far smaller than a camera or even an electron microscope could capture.

Here's more on what is called Casimir effect - Wikipedia that explains what I am talking about.

Yes , thanks for that..........it is a little bit over my head.
What I am trying to say is that they have found that something does appear out of nothing.

Yes it does appear to arise from nothingness, but it returns to nothingness, too. This means that overall nothing comes from nothing but you can get something if there are some fairly extreme force gradients (eg, Hawking radiation - Wikipedia).

Watch where thought appears..................there is nothing, thought arises and then subsides back to nothing.
Nothing is what there is.
Emptiness is forming.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: chr0naut

The virtual particles created by quantum fluctuation are far smaller than a camera or even an electron microscope could capture.

Here's more on what is called Casimir effect - Wikipedia that explains what I am talking about.

Yes , thanks for that..........it is a little bit over my head.
What I am trying to say is that they have found that something does appear out of nothing.

It's not coming from nothing, it's coming from a place we cannot detect. Not accurately at least.

We found the atom then theorized it's components, we found those too then thought about what makes that... See where I'm going?

Things coming from nothing would be chaos, chaos doesn't exist. We just don't perceive the order if things and assume it's totally random and unexplainable.

a reply to: RAY1990

In the beginning there was nothing............
There is still nothing but it appears as this image of light.

It is arising without condition.

This image of dancing light is appearing here now.

REALITY


What you are actually is beyond words, but it would be not untrue to say you are nothing whatsoever other than pure, infinite, disembodied consciousness/intelligence; a field of miraculous infinite light; God dreaming itself; an infinite point of pure potential; or the infinite implications of nothing whatsoever.

The immediate presentation of this unspeakable actuality is the field of your experience, which is an instantaneously appearing virtual field of Radiant Presence as apparent qualities. This is the actuality of which every/ and any/ thing that you think exists consists. This is inclusive and complete; nothing whatever other than this field exists. In short, the entirety of Reality is the "bubble" of YOUR experience, the field of Radiant Presence, which alone exists.

This is the totality of Reality. This is not theoretical, but is actually, immediately real; always the case right here right now.

The inherent Inelligence of Reality has the property of being able to interpret its radiant energies as patterns, and has the further ability to imagine hypothetical interpretations regarding what these imagined patterns might consist of: e.g. beings, entities, situations, etc.

It can happen that these hypothetical interpretations might include the idea that these patterns actually inherently exist as entities in themselves, that they might be actual independently existing individualities that have coherent identities that persist in time; and are more than just the instantaneous Radiance of Reality, as they actually are.

Further, the Intelligence can identify itself in imagination with various sets of these imagined patterns, while disidentifying itself from others, creating the fantasy of a "self", an embodiment, and an "objective environment". Through this possibility an apparent entity that exists in an apparent world can seem to exist, leading to the possibility of further elaborations in imagination on that theme, resulting in the apparent situation that you may seem to be finding yourself in at this moment. This is the case when one finds oneself lost in a dream, thinking that it is an actual objectively existing environment and events.

BUT the possibility of seeing the non-actual nature of this complex situationality is ever-present, since the entire confused scenario actually exists only in imagination and consists of nothing other than the inherent functioning of Reality itself. And all the apparent elements of this elaboration turn out to be substantially made of nothing other than Reality itself, so nothing other than the actual nature of Reality is perceivable the whole time.

Since Reality is always and eternally perfect and complete, in its constant final condition, and since "our" relationship to it, to consciousness / intelligence / energy, is already and eternally in a state of perfect fruition, our only "spiritual" task is to NOTICE this actual state of affairs; AND IT HAPPENS THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE.

theopendoorway.org...

a reply to: surfer_soul

In terms of perception and knowledge we don't "construct" anything, other than our thoughts. Kind of like how you don't build a house to see how it stands. Such things are theorized in advance, designs and concepts.

Space is just a name.
a reply to: surfer_soul

Spacetime is being "stretched" or is it being created to accommodate mass? Like an ever-expanding conveyor belt that refuses to be overcrowded.

Who knows, we can't perceive it yet. Like dark matter... We can't see it, touch it or hear it, yet we know of the absence of things and we see the effect this "absence" has on normal matter.

I love this topic too, while there are no proofs of the concepts anything could be possible and most probably is. 

Seemingly, but only in the context of reality.

a reply to: Abednego

I don't believe their is a void, I believe it's a human term for having a lack of things to perceive. Fish are creatures of instinct, with that said I'd bet money they understand the empty above and impassable below. Then again I don't think fish have a concept of nothingness.

originally posted by: RAY1990
I don't believe their is a void, I believe it's a human term for having a lack of things to perceive.

But you believe in humans as separate entities.
You believe in the thought 'I am separate to all that is'.

There is only the void................appearing as this ever changing image of light.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Except dreams are nothing like reality. Being capable of controlling my dreams at times I know that their is no rules, just the limits of my imagination.

Reality though? It has unbreakable rules. I cut myself, I bleed. The only time I won't bleed is if I don't severe capillaries or veins... Or when the blood has decayed to the point of no longer being a fluid.

Point being, I'm physical and the world around me is physical. This is what I believe and know. I'm not an ethereal being and I am not light.

But you believe in humans as separate entities. 
You believe in the thought 'I am separate to all that is'. 

There is only the void................appearing as this ever changing image of light.

I believe everything is separate yet intricately connected. One could say gravity alone fulfills this notion, we have many more "rules" to test that are unbreakable. But reality is ever changing yet it has constants. We can call them laws.

I'm not "separate" from anything and I'm a product of all that is... I'm not very egotistical, my being doesn't lend itself to the notion that I created everything that was or will be.

I'll die one day, others will after that day. I won't experience the latter. Just like I didn't experience what was beforehand.

I agree in the oneness aspect though, we are all one... But we are not the same.