Science question need some nerds

[staticflare]

I was thinking to myself and I had a thought that I'd like some answers to. So by hawkins logic space and time began with the big bang right? So if time started with the big bang, how could anything outside of space and time exist beforehand? There had to be a cause for the big bang it couldn't just "happen". But if space and time is literally everything in this universe which enables cause and effect, how can something that is outside of cause and effect cause the big bang to happen? Anyone have any ideas?

[Independent voter]

Hey! What are you trying to start?

The Big Bang did come out of no where. "In the beginning there was nothing. Poof! Everything came into being, at least once it started cooling down."

[Endus]

I was thinking to myself and I had a thought that I'd like some answers to. So by hawkins logic space and time began with the big bang right? So if time started with the big bang, how could anything outside of space and time exist beforehand? There had to be a cause for the big bang it couldn't just "happen". But if space and time is literally everything in this universe which enables cause and effect, how can something that is outside of cause and effect cause the big bang to happen? Anyone have any ideas?

Causality isn't actually that simple, going by recent quantum experiments.

And regardless, causality is a "feature" of our space-time. There's no real reason to expect that to remain consistent outside of it.

Plus, there's no need for there to be anything that "caused" the Big Bang, other than the nascent universe itself.

[Chrysia]

The short answer is: We don't know.

The long answer is: We still don't know, but there are a lot of working hypotheses with no real way to test them.

Cause and effect, for instance, are necessarily temporal, so if there wasn't time before the Big Bang, cause and effect, can't apply.

One hypothesis is a causality loop, where the effect actually precedes the cause, and because of our perception we see the effect first. This would most likely look like a cyclical universe winding back down to the Big Bang from our perspective.

Another is simultaneous causation, where the cause and effect were birthed simultaneously out of some strange timeless chaotic energy state.

There's the multiverse hypothesis.

There's also the older hypotheses of a creator being, but a timeless being that changes states from having not formed the universe to having formed the universe still presents a problem, as change is, again, necessarily temporal.

We don't really have any way to investigate any of these with our current technology or understanding of the universe.

[Endus]

There's also the older hypotheses of a creator being, but a timeless being that changes states from having not formed the universe to having formed the universe still presents a problem, as change is, again, necessarily temporal.

Just as an aside, these aren't actually explanations. They're a hand-wave saying "it's impossible magic, don't think about it".

In any setting where said "creator" is a real thing, it's beholden to the same "rules" as the universe, so handing it off to this "creator" to explain the universe's behaviour just means you've transferred those questions to that creator being and how it came to be; you didn't answer anything, you just shifted it up a level for no real reason.

And if you're arguing it's an impossible magical being that isn't beholden to those rules, then you're not actually making an argument; like I said, you're hand-waving and hoping your nonsense confuses people into thinking it's an answer, when it isn't.

Note that the above doesn't just apply to concepts of "god", it equally applies to extra-universal alien entities and so forth.

Any argument that includes a "creator" can be simplified to exclude that creator and work just as well, really.

[Independent voter]

What's odd to me is that it didn't happen again in the same spot. Or that we can see a much older universe off to our left where a prior Big Bang happened. It must be a very rare event.

[Deleted]

I came up with a theory that sadly already existed on what happened before the big bang and how it was caused in the first place. I had hoped I was the only one who came up with it but I Googled it and was disappointed.

Anyway, the theory:

I believe that our universe was created by a supermassive black hole in an universe that exists within the 4th dimension. The intense energy held in the singularity "exploded" or "imploded". That tore a hole through the current universe it existed in and poured out all the materials collected from raw celestial bodies/objects which gave our universe "matter" to create things with. It would explain where all the matter came from, where all the raw energy still floating around today came from. It would explain how it just came out of "nowhere" to us.

It would also be very exciting when you realize that there are other universes out there. Other universes with very different physics. Very different dimensions that we would get dizzy just thinking about.

I love this theory, it seems to be one of the most plausible theories to me out there. There's also my belief that the dark matter that exists around us may just be raw 4D material just floating waiting to make contact with 3D material to create what we see in front of us, the physical stuff that we can see, smell, touch and taste. And then a theory where our 3D universe is wrapped in a 4D universe that "protects" our universe from being ripped apart by incredibly powerful cosmic forces beyond our understanding. Each layer is another dimension that protects the dimension below. And because they're all layered over each other, they create all the key elements that our current universe has by taking little bits and pieces from each dimension.

I'm starting to get a little wild and that's because I'm extremely tired and I've just finished responding to lots of people tonight. So my brain is in full fucking hyper drive right now and I don't know if I can sleep.

Awesome question though!

[wrynil]

What's odd to me is that it didn't happen again in the same spot. Or that we can see a much older universe off to our left where a prior Big Bang happened. It must be a very rare event.

There is no 'spot' to begin with, as the universe expands, so to talk about a spot would include the whole universe.

[ComputerNerd]

Has it been said there is nothing outside of our universe ?
Plus you are a bit misleading in your argument, in that you say that Time and Space dictate cause and effect IN OUR universe but that because you presume they don't exist outside it, that there can't be anything else outside it.
Firstly the assumption that they are limited to our universe, and that they are the only means.

[Independent voter]

There is no 'spot' to begin with, as the universe expands, so to talk about a spot would include the whole universe.

That's odd, since the universe is expanding like a balloon, or so they say, I would imagine the center of the universe is the spot right in the center of the balloon or close to it.

[Endus]

What's odd to me is that it didn't happen again in the same spot. Or that we can see a much older universe off to our left where a prior Big Bang happened. It must be a very rare event.

Well, first, there's no "left" for that other universe to be in. Space itself is tied to this universe, and stretches and expands as the universe does. And the universe is all of it, forever, infinite.

Second, even if we theorized that there were another Big Bang type event outside our universe, we'd have no way to see it. We can't see everything in this universe, because light's only had so long to travel since the beginning. And space was expanding faster than the speed of light, back in the beginning. Which doesn't break physics because physics is actually really weird.

[JasonWuzHear]

Basically to define a notion of time, you need a reference. Hawking is saying that we don't know anything before the big bang, and so our definition of time is limited to the age of the universe.

Or another way to say it is that to define a time, you need change... specifically a change in energy. The largest system that is changing in energy is all the matter in the observable universe not including dark matter and dark energy. So using that whole system, we can define a time associated with that called "The age of the universe" to some fundamental accuracy based on how quickly it's changing in energy. Anything larger than this system, for instance if we include all the energy lost in terms of gravitational potential (basically try to find a timescale of when the universe banged) we fail because energy is conserved here.

It's the same concept as, if you were to imagine a static universe that doesn't expand or contract. You cannot define a time of when the universe began because this universe conserves energy.

[Mormolyce]

So by hawkins logic space and time began with the big bang right? So if time started with the big bang, how could anything outside of space and time exist beforehand? There had to be a cause for the big bang it couldn't just "happen".

Hawking didn't propose the "big bang" theory.

This is actually a philosophy question more than a science question.

Think about it this way: there are only two possibilities.

1) Time has always existed, so there is an infinite expanse of time in the past and the universe never had a beginning, it's always been there. That's impossible.

2) Time came into existence at some fixed point in the past, meaning that the universe has only existed for finite amount of time. Before that there was nothing - not even time - and all of space and time spontaneously popped into existence out of nothing. That's impossible.

So there you go, two impossible things and one of them has to be true. Want to get breakfast at Milliways?

[Independent voter]

Well, first, there's no "left" for that other universe to be in. Space itself is tied to this universe, and stretches and expands as the universe does. And the universe is all of it, forever, infinite.

Second, even if we theorized that there were another Big Bang type event outside our universe, we'd have no way to see it. We can't see everything in this universe, because light's only had so long to travel since the beginning. And space was expanding faster than the speed of light, back in the beginning. Which doesn't break physics because physics is actually really weird.

I know there's no "left" I just wanted to see if you'd mention it.

If the second universe was much older and closer to Earth we might see it, Hell the two universes could even overlap.

[Endus]

That's odd, since the universe is expanding like a balloon, or so they say, I would imagine the center of the universe is the spot right in the center of the balloon or close to it.

A better visualization I've heard is that the balloon is a good analogy for the universe, but it's a 2d plane wrapped around a 3d core; the analogous concept to the universe is that the entire universe is the skin of the balloon. And the whole thing is expanding. It's just expanding in three dimensions, where the balloon expands in a curved plane. The math doesn't require a 4th dimension, but if the balloon is a 2d plane wrapped around a 3d core, the universe is a 3d framework wrapped around a 4d "core".

So the concept of a "center" is basically meaningless. We're not expanding "out" from any particular point. We're just expanding, period. Wherever you go, it looks like everything's expanding away from you.

Shit's weird, mang. https://www.space.com/33005-where-is...dge-op-ed.html

[alzoron]

That's odd, since the universe is expanding like a balloon, or so they say, I would imagine the center of the universe is the spot right in the center of the balloon or close to it.

It's counter-intuitive but think of everywhere as being the center of the universe.

[Jun]

Best to keep in mind that the Universe as we know it is entirely theoretical to begin with; in short, we can't prove it doesn't exist. What lies at the so-called center, where it came from, and where it's going is all experimental thought.

Personally, I enjoy the romance of it all. Astronomy is what I've wanted to major in when I get back to Uni.

[Endus]

It's counter-intuitive but think of everywhere as being the center of the universe.

That's really the right answer. Nothing's expanding away from the point where the Big Bang "blew up". The Big Bang "blew up" everywhere all at once. Where we are, right now? That's where the Big Bang was. Some theoretical place 32 feet outside the observable universe? The Big Bang also "blew up" there. At the same moment it "blew up" here. And there and here were basically the same place at the time, but not quite.

[Garnier Fructis]

The answer is that Hawking is jumping the gun. It's well known that our physical theories break down at t = 0 cosmological time, which means that they're using current theory to make statements about a regime where current theory cannot be applied.

1) Time has always existed, so there is an infinite expanse of time in the past and the universe never had a beginning, it's always been there. That's impossible.

There's nothing inherently illogical about (benign) infinite regress.

[Endus]

There's nothing inherently illogical about (benign) infinite regress.

Also, if the cyclical universe model holds, then while time-space DID crush down into a single point before blowing up into the Big Bang, it still existed in some form before, though it may have followed different rules in that iteration.