MyKell

I would like to ask the physicists out there about theories that are being formulated to account for the Big Bang itself. That is, what was there before the big bang?
I have read Stephen Hawkings Brief History of Time. What I understood is that the birth of time was at the moment of the big bang. The arrow of time has been pointing from past to future since then. Before that, there was no time, therefore, cause and effect do not apply in the way we understand them in our version of spacetime.
Can someone give me a clearer insight on what theoretical physicists are thinking these days about this issue?

Autonemesis

I had some notes about this, but I left them behind when I visited the area north of the North Pole.

In case I am being to subtle, my point is this: asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. The Big Bang is a point in time rather like the point in space we call the North Pole of the Earth. It's a "zero" on a coordinate system, only along the temporal axis rather than a spatial axis.

Mad Kally

You read the whole book?

Tim Thompson

Quantum cosmology opens a zoo of possibilities. Whatever comes "before" the Big bang depends entirely on your favorite flavor of cosmology.

• Maurizio Gasperini - A collection of papers on pre Big Bang cosmology in string theory.
• Paul Steinhardt - Cyclic Universe Cosmology.

Although it is generally assumed that straight general relativity does not define anything "before" the Big Bang, it is possible to get around this restriction by appealing to "closed timelike curves" ("time travel" in the common tongue). It is possible (apparently), to construct a realistic general relativistic model, in which the universe literally creates itself, in a differnt form of "cyclic universe" that uses closed timelike curves instead of quantum physics (i.e., "Can the Universe create itself?", J.R. Gott & L.X. Li, Physical Review D 58(2): art. no. 023501, July 15, 1998).

Boro Nut

My personal feelings are that before the bid bang there must have been a prolonged period of blue fizzing.

Boro Nut

Paul2

Afaik, time started at the big bang, so there was no 'before.' feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

Jimmy Higgins

Blue?

Magus55

Hmm, nothing before the Big bang? Well since the first law of thermodynamics states matter can't destroy or create - where did the energy and matter come from to set off the big bang?

Godless Dave

Like all laws of physics, the first law of thermodynamics only describes the behavior of matter and energy within the universe. At its beginning point all the matter and energy were already there.

Magus55

That still doesn't answer what set off the Big Bang and no sorry try again with matter always being there - everything which is material had to have a beginning.

And Paul2 was saying that before the big bang it was nothing - as in that singular point where the Big bang started was nothing. And if it was nothing, there was no matter ( or at least no where near enough ) matter to explode and form celestial bodies to cover the expanse of the universe.

Not to mention, is there any actual evidence of the Big bang? Having an expanding universe doesn't count.