ajm51987

I was wondering, if any one knew of any authors that have pusblished theroies on what the Universe was before the big bang, I know that know one really knows, but I just want theroies. I asked this on a Star Trek fourm and got "God Snaped His Fingers" I knew if I asked here I might get a decent awnser

MortalWombat

I dunno. What's north of the the North Pole?

Krieger

Well, I searched on Yahoo and found <a href="http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/cosm/cosmol.html" target="_blank">this site</a>.

JohnR

Here is an interesting article.
<a href="http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html" target="_blank">http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html</a>

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: JohnR ]</p>

Jobar

If you are *really* interested, try <a href="http://www.everythingforever.com/" target="_blank">this site.</a>

(Hey, he listed a quote from me on his title page! )

Bill

The problem with your question is that, if time begins with the big bang (which it does if the big bang is considered to be a singularity) then there is no "before" relative to the big bang. That is the reason that MortalWombat made that rather cryptic comment: "What's north of the the North Pole?" Nothing is "north of the North Pole" because the North Pole is as far to the North as you can go in a polar coordinate system like that.

But is a polar coordinate system with a pole located at the big bang the "really correct model" for how time works vis-a-vis our own little space/time continuum? Personally, I don't believe that it is. In all other circumstances, we handle time as a linear dimension.

Of course, there is increasing evidence to the effect that the big bang may not actually be a "beginning" for everything. In spite of everything, we may yet find out that we live in a cyclical situation of expansions followed by contractions, with each expansion "beginning" with something like the big bang. In this case, the answer to what came before the big bang would be another cycle of big bang, expansion, contraction, and big crunch.

A third possibility, and still my personal favorite, is the one where our space/time continuum is a breakaway chunk of a larger reality. Time exists in that larger reality, and so the time we experience is really a continuation of the world-line from that larger reality.

The bottom line here is that we still see a virtual singularity at the time of the big bang, even if we now deny the reality of the actual singularity. That singularity (real or virtual) blocks our ability to find out anything at all about what came "before" the big bang (even presuming that there is a valid answer to that question of "what came 'before' the big bang?").

So, the true bottom line here is "we don't really know......"

== Bill

Christopher Lord

Time could be 'polar' if it is really a big 'string' of String Theory fame. (strings in String Theory can be multidemensional, taking on sphere-or hyper-sphere qualities)

This sort of thing, although facinating, really boggles me. I'm surprised and pleased I took up anything from the later chapters of 'Elegant Universe'.

Mr. Sammi

Try the philosopher Plotinus.

Sammi Na Boodie (nous)

Tim Thompson

Here's a good place to start: <a href="http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclintro/index.html" target="_blank">The Endless Universe: A Brief Introduction to the Cyclic Universe</a> (for non scientists). <a href="http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/" target="_blank">Paul Steinhardt</a> (Princeton) & <a href="http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ngt1000/" target="_blank">Neil Turok</a> (Cambridge) along with a few others, are principle architects of a cyclic universe cosmology based on superstring theory. Originally introduced as the "ekpyrotic universe" (<a href="http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0103239" target="_blank">Ekpyrotic universe: Colliding branes and the origin of the hot big bang</a>, J. Khoury, B.A. Ovrut, P.J. Steinhardt & N. Turok, Physical Review D 64(12): art. no. 123522, December 15, 2001), a speculative model, the idea has been given stronger theoretical foundations (<a href="http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0111030" target="_blank">A cyclic model of the universe</a>, P.J. Steinhardt & N. Turok, Science 296(5572): 1436-1439, May 24, 2002; <a href="http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0108187" target="_blank">From big crunch to big bang</a>, J. Khoury, B.A. Ovrut, N. Seiberg, P.J. Steinhardt & N. Turok, Physical Review D 65(8): art. no. 086007, Part B, April 15, 2002).

The basic idea is that string theory is built around a universe not of 3 or 4 dimensions, but 10 ("normal" string theory) or 11 ("M-theory"). While the universe appears to have a distinct beginning at the "Big Bang" in 3 or 4 dimensions, that event can be exposed as a kind of "optical illusion" in the 11 dimensions of an M-theory universe. But I do not know as yet, that it would even be possible to demonstrate any necessary, observational consequence of such a cyclic cosmology.

See also <a href="http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0204479" target="_blank">The Cyclic Universe: An Informal Introduction</a> (Steinhardt & Turok, 29 April 2002) and <a href="http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0111098" target="_blank">Cosmic Evolution in a Cyclic Universe</a> (Steinhardt & Turok, Physical Review D 65, paper no. 126003, 2002). Most of the material in print is not directed towards non scientist readers, which accounts for my lack of more popular level links. But, hopefully there is enough here for now.

Deathray 6

This is what I see as the greatest weakness of the BBT. Any attempts to make the origin of the universe a causal event--something it really needs to do, IMO--suffer from a severe lack of observational support, like the idea Tim mentioned. Other ideas include the "quantum foam/baby universe" theory as well as the "oscillating universe" (alternating Bangs and Crunches) theory. However, if my memory serves me right, the latter was ruled out a long time ago (something about such a scenario would result in most matter being helium, and that something can't "bounce away" from something at a speed equal to or greater than escape velocity). In any case, I don't know if BB theorists can get around this jam. It may even one day be replaced by a theory which postulates a universe with no beginning or end (Just my opinion. I could turn out to be wrong). Practically no theory has ever lasted forever, and the BBT might not be an exception. Only time will tell.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Deathray 6 ]</p>