Before The Big Bang

We were taught that you never get something for nothing. But now, after a life time of work, I think that in fact you can get a whole Universe for free. ~ Stephen Hawking

In order to disprove the idea that the Big Bang was started by God, Hawking postulates the Universe simply "popped into existence". He based this on the fact that at the quantum level small sub-atomic particles are known to pop into and out of existence randomly. Knowing that the Universe started as a very small and dense sphere of energy he proposes the Universe may have simply appeared from no where for no apparent reason.

Then he says that God couldn't have possibly created the laws of quantum mechanics because the Universe, he claims, started as an infinitely dense and infinitely small black hole. And time does not exist within a black hole. Therefore it's impossible for God to have created the Big Bang... because there was no time before the Big Bang. However, there are several apparent flaws in this logic.

First of all, black holes aren't known to simply pop into existence. Indeed, small sub-atomic particles can spontaneously appear and they can even be measured in two places at once... but black holes do not spontaneously appear in the same fashion. Secondly, time outside of a black hole does not stop. His argument ignores the fact that all the current evidence suggests we are in an infinite flat Universe.

In an infinite flat Universe the Big Bang is not responsible for the creation of space-time. Indeed, the Big Bang is described as a large release of energy taking place inside a Universe which already contains an infinite amount of flat space. It is highly likely time does stop inside a black hole, but his theory would assume that the black hole is the only thing in existence and takes up all space.

Don't be mistaken, this thread is not an attempt to prove everything Hawking says as false. I am just paving the way for what I think is a more reasonable theory. In my opinion, Hawking is indeed correct when it comes to negative energy. The energy of the Big Bang had to come from some where, and there is absolutely no logic in assuming that energy has always existed.

The Theory of NoThing

Although it wasn't in the form of a black hole, the energy required for the Big Bang did indeed spontaneously appear. However, that energy couldn't have simply appeared as one super dense sphere of energy, or else it would be a black hole (more on this later when we get to the main part of my creation theory). But where did all this 'stuff' actually come from or how was it created?

As explained by Hawking, this needs to be looked at from a purely abstract mathematical perspective. Lets say the state of 'nothing' is a neutral state, that would be best represented as 0. The state of 'something' would probably be best represented as the positive integer 1. That's it right? Common sense would tell us we only have two possible states: 'something' and 'nothing'.

However, if we are thinking about this mathematically, a neutral state (nothing) can't give rise to a positive state (something) unless something else changes. You simply can't get 1 (something) from 0 (nothing). You need something to balance it out, to make it work from a logical mathematical perspective. So what is -1 plus 1? That's right, the answer is 0.

There are 3 states. Not just 0 and 1. But -1, 0, and 1. We must take into consideration what Hawking refers to as "negative energy". I hypothesize there is a negative state of reality which would perhaps be like a mirror image of this reality. The big bang was only one side of the actual explosion. In negative space there was a negative big bang creating an equilibrium.

A positive big bang plus a negative big bang equals no big bang. Of course when separated into their finite parts the Universe most definitely exists, but when you add the negative Universe the sum is nil. Hawking believes all the negative energy is "spread evenly through space", although the basic concept is still the same. You can think about this in several ways:

-1 + 1 = 0

Positive Things + Negative Things = No[color=gray]thing

Sum total of all things = No[color=gray]thing

Thus the average state of reality is actually neutral/nothing. There is no logical contradiction, as this theory clearly shows things can come from nothing, assuming that negative-things also exist to provide a total sum of nothing. Please do not confuse anti-matter with negative-matter. We probably wont be able to detect the negative-universe due to the nature of it.

We can detect anti-matter, and if normal matter collides with anti-matter it will release 100% energy. If negative-matter collided with normal matter, they would cancel each other out, leaving NOTHING - as I have been explaining. There would be no explosion, the positive state would cancel out the negative state and leave a neutral state.

The Fabric of Reality is a Wave

If you want to create energy in our positive Universe then you must also create negative energy in the negative Universe. Imagine the fabric of space-time as a flat 2 dimensional sheet. If you push up from under it you create a lump on top (energy in the positive Universe). Now if you pull down on the sheet and create an indentation you've created negative energy.

Hawking gives a similar analogy in his video, he explains it with a man digging ditch in the ground. The pile of dirt is the positive energy and hole is the negative version of the dirt pile. Each have the same volume. The fabric of reality works the same way, you must 'push' and 'pull' on the fabric with equal forces. The result would look like a wave form in the fabric.

The average state of reality at this very moment is in fact nothing. The energy we can measure is merely an isolated displacement/fluctuation of the fabric on which reality is built. When you put all those fluctuations together (negative and positive) they don't drift into the positive or the negative range... it's like a wave form with equal troughs and crests.

What if the natural state of reality is 'nothing' and the appearance of 'something' is like a momentary blip in the system, similar to a virtual particle, it's not absolutely "real", it has to stretch the laws of raw reality to create illusions which actually appear to be real. That's why reality is "fuzzy" at the most fundamental levels.

These 'blips' are actually the fluctuations of the fabric of reality, the quantum vacuum. This is why some physicists refer to virtual particles as simply "quantum vacuum fluctuations". At the smallest scales of reality the vacuum is acting like a wave, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle causes the fabric of the vacuum to flex and warp, such that we refer to it as the "Quantum foam".

Quantum foam (also referred to as spacetime foam), is a concept in quantum mechanics devised by John Wheeler in 1955. The foam is supposed to be conceptualized as the foundation of the fabric of the universe.[1]

Additionally, quantum foam can be used as a qualitative description of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances (on the order of the Planck length). At such small scales of time and space, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles and then annihilate without violating physical conservation laws.

Quantum foam

So what exactly is the "fabric of the vacuum"... as mentioned in that excerpt it is space-time. What I am describing is "spacetime turbulence" at the quantum scale. This would indicate even space-time (at the quantum scale) acts like a probabilistic quantum wave where it's shape is subject to random changes. A chaotic sea of turbulence resulting in a foam-like appearance.



There is no such thing as Matter

Now here's where it gets a little bit less main stream. There is a controversial theory called "Loop Quantum Gravity" (LQG) which suggests that the space-time turbulence is actually responsible for creating virtual particles along with all other particles. In essence, the theory suggests 'braided' space-time is actually the structure of particles.

If you twist up some space-time into a "knot" so the space can't neutralize or decay you get what we call a particle. In essence there is no such thing as 'matter', matter is simply complex 'braids' of space-time which produce the illusion of being matter within a space-time substrate, but are in fact made of space-time itself. Space and matter are the same thing.

Now if you consider the discovery made by Einstein, which is that matter and energy are essentially the same thing and they are interchangeable, as described by his famous equation... and you now consider space and matter to be the same thing, the only thing you are left with is space. Everything in the Universe is simply space in one form or another, there's nothing else.

When you think about it like this, it would indicate the "negative" matter/energy we spoke about before is actually space-time being stretched into the negative dimension. Remember my analogy of pushing and pulling on the fabric of reality? In this case simply pushing on one side will cause the other other side to react in an equal but opposite way, thus maintaining an equilibrium.

It's probably better to think about the example Hawking gave; as you disturb the flat ground by removing dirt, you create a hole equal in volume to the amount of dirt you removed from the hole. In this way there's always an equal amount of positive and negative energy, which ensures the average state of reality is actually nothing and that we aren't getting energy from an unexplained source.

The Time before the Big Bang

Now, after considering everything I have just explained, I am going to attempt to describe a more reasonable theory concerning the creation of our Universe rather than assuming a black hole just simply popped out of no where and started expanding for no apparent reason, thus kick starting time, leading to the assumption nothing existed before the Big Bang.

Indeed things did exist before the Big Bang, because we are living in an infinite flat Universe, as all the latest research indicates. We need to start with our basic assumptions that the fabric of space-time is subject to turbulence, and this turbulence leads to the creation of energy and matter. This turbulence does cause energy to seem to pop out of no where.

However, it's usually very tiny amounts of energy and it only lasts for very tiny amounts of time before the space-time is able to retract back to a neutral state and the energy disappears. We will simply have empty space should the process continue like this. The key to this problem is complex turbulence where the space is spontaneously braided in ways which restrict it from neutralizing.

This would certainly be a very rare occurrence, but the result will be simple types of particles which don't decay back into nothing. These particles would operate according to the known rules of particle physics and many of them would be attracted to each other. Given enough time these particles would build up into large clumps of matter containing a considerable amount of energy.

Eventually this "clump" of matter will become so huge and energetic/unstable that it will explode! Perhaps it might implode in on its self first, creating a vastly dense sphere of energy and then explode or inflate. From this point the Big Bang theory can explain what happened next. Eventually the energy released will cool and condense and form matter once again.

I think I will be way over my head here, so pardon me!

Great thread!

To the point. I like the application of the idea of what we see about everything in the universe, two sides of a coin, and the small line that separates it.

At the end of your second post, you talk of implosion, and I had this idea; we are in an explosive universe, mainly, with touches of implosions. What if the other side of the Big Bang was an implosion, spiked with touches of explosions?

This leads me to the equation of positive + negative = nothing.

What if the equation was, instead, something + nothing = thing.
It would respect the example of the pile of dirt versus the hole it left. But instead of having nothing, we still have something at the basis. Because if you put back the pile of dirt in the hole, you are not left with nothing, nor something, but a thing.

But I told you, I may be way over my head, so please be nice to me!

reply to post by NowanKenubi

At the end of your second post, you talk of implosion, and I had this idea; we are in an explosive universe, mainly, with touches of implosions. What if the other side of the Big Bang was an implosion, spiked with touches of explosions?

That is an interesting way of putting it... and I guess it's no more false than the way I explained it, in fact it's probably a better way of explaining it, but it's too hard to visualize and understand for most people.

What if the equation was, instead, something + nothing = thing.
It would respect the example of the pile of dirt versus the hole it left. But instead of having nothing, we still have something at the basis. Because if you put back the pile of dirt in the hole, you are not left with nothing, nor something, but a thing.

I'm not really sure about this. "something + nothing = thing" would be a correct statement, but "something + nothing = something" is equally as correct. A thing is the same as some thing. And if we have some thing left over, the equilibrium is broken. If you put the dirt back in the hole you are left with a flat plane (neutral space-time)... and since we are assuming energy is created via fluctuations in the space-time fabric we can't include that fabric as a "thing" in our equation. So following our analogy, we are left with nothing should we put the dirt back. Hope you got that.

I believe that before the big bang there was Unity.

After the big bang, there was Duality, the creation of Light and Dark, Good and Bad, Hot and Cold, Male and Female, Past and Future. This is the very nature of our universe, opposites.

This is putting into words something that is beyond human comprehension.

reply to post by Konduit

This is putting into words something that is beyond human comprehension.

If my theory is correct then it certainly isn't beyond our comprehension. Your vague theory probably would be though.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Thanks. Yes, I get it, but don't find it quite satisfactory...

reply to post by Konduit


You are forgetting Twilight, Neutral, Warm, Androgynous, and Present, the thin line that links opposites.

edit: sorry I see you weren't even replying to me.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


The only issue with that is, the Big Bang wasn't really an explosion. The "birth" of the universe was (theoretically, at least) a period of extreme expansion in the first fraction of a second.

So, might I suggest that, instead of looking at the Big Bang being caused by a dense region of matter (which would just create a black hole), you consider the effects of the negative energy side on the expansion of space-time. Since the positive energy is just on the other side of space-time as the negative energy, any expansion caused by the negative energy will also occur on the positive energy side (between positive particles, since they will locally counteract the expansion with their own gravity...but only locally).

I was expecting you to pop into this thread, but you certainly didn't waste any time!

The only issue with that is, the Big Bang wasn't really an explosion. The "birth" of the universe was (theoretically, at least) a period of extreme expansion in the first fraction of a second.

Well that is why I said "Perhaps it might implode in on its self first, creating a vastly dense sphere of energy and then explode or inflate.". But of course I have no idea how that would work. Your explanation concerning the negative energy is a bit over my head. As you may know I am not an expert on this stuff, I'm just putting together a bunch of the information I have learnt over the years (you may have noticed a moderate portion of the info in this thread was actually taught to me by you). But in any case, it's getting really late here and I'll be getting some sleep shortly. I'll come back and try to consider what you said more carefully and respond in a more reasonable manner when my mind is refreshed.

edit: ok I read your comment a few more times and I understand what you are saying. But what would cause the negative side to act on space-time in such a way in the first place? What would produce such "effects of the negative energy side"... in other words, why would it be important to look at the effects of the negative side when anything causing such an effect should be acting on both sides anyway.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

I saw the title thread and thought I'd add that Hawking said time ends in black holes and if we can figure out how that happens then we might learn how time begins in a big bang.

Hawking is part brain child of black holes. I really need to learn more about this. My knowledge is limited to a few things I've seen on TV and some references in books. Pathetic and not good enough. Hawking developed ALS sometime in his early adult life, just after his teenager years. It's terrible. I gotta ask: Would he have done more without it? Or maybe ALS is what made him what he is.

Did see this the other day:
www.spacedaily.com ...

The US space agency said Wednesday it is preparing to launch next month a sophisticated orbiting telescope that will use high energy X-ray vision to hunt for black holes in the universe.

The project aims to study the "hottest, densest and most energetic phenomena in the universe, like for example black holes and the explosions of massive stars," said Fiona Harrison, principal investigator for the Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR).
.........

reply to post by jonnywhite

I saw the title thread and thought I'd add that Hawking said time ends in black holes and if we can figure out how that happens then we might learn how time begins in a big bang.

That statement is probably referring to his theory that time didn't exist before the Big Bang.

Hawking is part brain child of black holes. I really need to learn more about this. My knowledge is limited to a few things I've seen on TV and some references in books. Pathetic and not good enough.

Here's a good doco which is concerning Hawking and black holes:

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

I was expecting you to pop into this thread, but you certainly didn't waste any time!

I've got (almost) nothing else to do today than sit here and wait for people such as yourself to post threads such as this

... (you may have noticed a moderate portion of the info in this thread was actually taught to me by you).

Sure did. At least you know I can't fault you for any of that.

ok I read your comment a few more times and I understand what you are saying. But what would cause the negative side to act on space-time in such a way in the first place? What would produce such "effects of the negative energy side"... in other words, why would it be important to look at the effects of the negative side when anything causing such an effect should be acting on both sides anyway.

Positive energy/mass has positive gravity, "pulling" space in. Negative energy/mass has what we could call negative gravity, "pushing" space out (expansion). On one side, you would have negative gravity promoting expansion. On the other, you have regular gravity, counteracting it. The thing is, the negative particles won't align with the positive particles on the other side. While the positive particles will be locally exerting an inward gravitational pull, there are likely to be negative particles on the other side of space-time at location corresponding to regions between the positive particles. Since the negative particles on the negative side are causing the space-time "fabric" to expand, that means the space between the positive particles on the positive side will also expand. The only areas this won't happen is where no negative particles exist on the other side or where there are positive particles to counteract the expansion (the same is true today,even...regions of mass, such as galaxies, locally counteract the expansion of the universe, so that space doesn't expand inside them).

Of course, the devil's in the details. Strictly speaking, negative energy alone won't cause continuous expansion. That requires negative pressure. But it's no huge stretch to image that negative energy could also exert negative pressure. Negative pressure is a requirement for dark energy (though, your theory would explain why dark energy isn't observed in our universe...you have it in a mirrored negative universe).

There is only one thing I can think of that could cause an extremely dense mass to explode. When you allow General Relativity to include the effects of quantum spin, you get a massive repulsive force (torsion) at extremely high densities. Theoretically, this has been used to prevent black hole singularities and explain how the universe could be inside a black hole. There was a thread about that a couple weeks ago.

reply to post by CLPrime

Positive energy/mass has positive gravity, "pulling" space in. Negative energy/mass has what we could call negative gravity, "pushing" space out (expansion). On one side, you would have negative gravity promoting expansion. On the other, you have regular gravity, counteracting it. The thing is, the negative particles won't align with the positive particles on the other side. While the positive particles will be locally exerting an inward gravitational pull, there are likely to be negative particles on the other side of space-time at location corresponding to regions between the positive particles. Since the negative particles on the negative side are causing the space-time "fabric" to expand, that means the space between the positive particles on the positive side will also expand. The only areas this won't happen is where no negative particles exist on the other side or where there are positive particles to counteract the expansion (the same is true today,even...regions of mass, such as galaxies, locally counteract the expansion of the universe, so that space doesn't expand inside them).

Ok it's all making perfect sense now. You really are brilliant. And in my opinion the fact that large regions of mass locally counteract the expansion of the Universe, is fairly hardcore proof that what you explained is actually taking place.

Of course, the devil's in the details. Strictly speaking, negative energy alone won't cause continuous expansion. That requires negative pressure. But it's no huge stretch to image that negative energy could also exert negative pressure.

It's seems perfectly logical to me to assume that would be the case. Negative pressure, negative gravity, negative everything.

Although Hawking has a brilliant mind and he is a very accomplished scientist and thinker, his choice is to not believe in God and he is entitled to that. However, I do believe and I am entitled to that. He sets out to prove there is no God, but has not succeeded in doing so.
I am, by no means, smarter than Hawking and will never claim to be. I see God as not existing inside this universe and not being subjected to the laws of the universe. I support the idea of the big bang, but also see it as needing a beginning, a trigger so to speak and it is my belief (of which I have no proof for or against) that the trigger was God.
I choose to combine my scientific and religious views into one and let them go hand in hand. That is my perogative as it is his to dispell religion completely. Neither of us have proven ourselves correct and regardless of his intelligence and wisdom, I will not subscribe to his theory on this matter until he can show absolute proof. Great minds have been wrong before and they will be wrong again. I may be wrong, and if so, then I will very sadly admit that, but until then, I will hold on to my belief in God and in the processes of science but not every theory that may come from it without adequate proof, just as any other scientist would do.

reply to post by CLPrime


So.... in a way, mass/gravity is very much akin to electromagnetism as far as positive/negative and push/pull (attract/repel)? Very interesting concept and worth further exploration. It would be logical since we are now delving further into the subatomic particles, some with a charge and some without and those particles make up the atoms that make up the mass that has the gravity (I don't know why she swallowed the fly ).
If we could break it down to the most elementary particle possible, which is probably centuries away, it would be very enlightening to see if that particle has some sort of charge or if the primary particle is neutral and in breaking apart initially started the positive and negative aspects that basically created all that is in our universe.

how cute

man thinks he understands the universe

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
how cute

man thinks he understands the universe

I don't claim to understand anything. The only truth is in knowing you know nothing.

This is just a theory, and that was stated in the title but I shortened it.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Hawking is right about the wave-function of the universe producing the Big Bang. There is one "tiny" problem though if he wants to use this to argue that God doesn't exist: