http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27935479

Scientists who claimed to have found a pattern in the sky left by the super-rapid expansion of space just fractions of a second after the Big Bang say they are now less confident of their result.

I admit I don't really understand this! I'm prepared to concede that, as I can produce no viable alternative, the universe developed out of the Big Bang..... but what I've always wondered is, what came before the Big Bang? Nothing shall come of nothing, as Lear said.

Christians would say that what came before the Big Bang was the Creation (leaving aside the Creationists, who can't think back before 4004 B.C.). I don't particularly care what you call it.... but what did come before the Big Bang?

The Big Implosion. And so the cycle continues. As the universe's expansions slowly slows down, it will reach a point where it starts to reverse, then at an ever increasing rate, collapse back in on itself.

Before the Big Bang, there was nothingness. And then He (a.k.a. the Flying Spaghetti Monster) switched on the light. That's all there is to it. No big deal.

Before the Big Bang, there was nothingness. And then He (a.k.a. the Flying Spaghetti Monster) switched on the light. That's all there is to it. No big deal.

Do you wear a colander on your head like the other Pastafarians?

Just asking.

Before the Big Bang, there was nothingness. And then He (a.k.a. the Flying Spaghetti Monster) switched on the light. That's all there is to it. No big deal.

Do you wear a colander on your head like the other Pastafarians?

Just asking.

No. Not all other pastafarians do that; some do, most don't.

Sent from my A 8+ using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Some space scientists still believe it could be a repeating cycle. Big Bang. expand. contract. Big Bang etc.

Some space scientists still believe it could be a repeating cycle. Big Bang. expand. contract. Big Bang etc.

I think this is what Seastallion meant in post #2. Makes sense but

How did it all start?

Some space scientists still believe it could be a repeating cycle. Big Bang. expand. contract. Big Bang etc.

I think this is what Seastallion meant in post #2. Makes sense but

How did it all start?

It was what I meant.

In the scheme of things, it is hard enough for this mere mortal to comprehend the scale of time and space involved in the theoretical cycle, let alone the "beginning" of it all.

I concede that that is an argument for God.

On the other hand, we don't understand the time-space continuum.

Higgs bosun may give clues, but it is still incomprehensible overall.

I quote Tennyson;

Flower in the crannied wall,

I pluck you out of the cranny.

I hold you in my hand, root and all,

Little flower if I could understand

What you are, root and all and all in all,

I would know what God and Man is.

(forgive me if I misquote...I haven't recalled that verse for maybe decades)

I always took that to mean, if he understood literally "all in all" i.e beyond the atoms, beyond the hadrons, beyond the quarks, beyond the bosuns.....he would indeed know what God (and thus Man) is.

Some space scientists still believe it could be a repeating cycle. Big Bang. expand. contract. Big Bang etc.

If there's Big Bang Inflation does that mean that each Big Bang is bigger than the previous one?

Some space scientists still believe it could be a repeating cycle. Big Bang. expand. contract. Big Bang etc.

I think this is what Seastallion meant in post #2. Makes sense but

How did it all start?

Didn't Stephen Hawkins offer a theory with mathmatical equation, that something can come into existence out of nothing?

Some space scientists still believe it could be a repeating cycle. Big Bang. expand. contract. Big Bang etc.

I think this is what Seastallion meant in post #2. Makes sense but

How did it all start?

Didn't Stephen Hawkins offer a theory with mathmatical equation, that something can come into existence out of nothing?

Did he? Are you referring to string theory?

If so, I don't think that covers it, unless you pre-suppose parallel universes. (Which are not out of the question)

Some space scientists still believe it could be a repeating cycle. Big Bang. expand. contract. Big Bang etc.

I think this is what Seastallion meant in post #2. Makes sense but

How did it all start?

Didn't Stephen Hawkins offer a theory with mathmatical equation, that something can come into existence out of nothing?

Did he? Are you referring to string theory?

If so, I don't think that covers it, unless you pre-suppose parallel universes. (Which are not out of the question)

http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

I googled Stephen Hawking something out of nothing

I think this is what Seastallion meant in post #2. Makes sense but

How did it all start?

Didn't Stephen Hawkins offer a theory with mathmatical equation, that something can come into existence out of nothing?

Did he? Are you referring to string theory?

If so, I don't think that covers it, unless you pre-suppose parallel universes. (Which are not out of the question)

http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

I googled Stephen Hawking something out of nothing

Parallel/multiple universes, same same.

String theory, which says that something can be in two states at the same time, has on the other side of it's coin (or is it the same side?), that something can be and not be at the same time.

Somewhere in there, is the idea of something out of nothing.

As I understand it.

I haven't looked at M theory. I'll save that for a rainy day and the internet is down.

The Big Implosion. And so the cycle continues. As the universe's expansions slowly slows down, it will reach a point where it starts to reverse, then at an ever increasing rate, collapse back in on itself.

I remember that quite recent physics Nobel was awarded to the scientists who prove that the universe is expanding with increasing speed and it would not collapse back to single point anymore.

One of the implications was that in the later days the sky would be dark, or at least the other galaxies, not including our Milky way, would be so distant that we would not be able to see those.

For alternative theories. What if there was no big bang at all. If there was simply an shockwave, which spread through the universe, separating unified labile energy field. This later on created the first physics laws as we know now, as well as matter and antimatter.

.. what started the shockwave.. well, back to the original question, what was before nothing?

We also have to remember that we know nothing about nothing. At some point we had an undividable particles, called atoms. Now we have sub-particles. In the future we'll go far smaller particles or energyfields than that. At that point we still know nothing about nothing.

The Big Implosion. And so the cycle continues. As the universe's expansions slowly slows down, it will reach a point where it starts to reverse, then at an ever increasing rate, collapse back in on itself.

I remember that quite recent physics Nobel was awarded to the scientists who prove that the universe is expanding with increasing speed and it would not collapse back to single point anymore.

One of the implications was that in the later days the sky would be dark, or at least the other galaxies, not including our Milky way, would be so distant that we would not be able to see those.

For alternative theories. What if there was no big bang at all. If there was simply an shockwave, which spread through the universe, separating unified labile energy field. This later on created the first physics laws as we know now, as well as matter and antimatter.

.. what started the shockwave.. well, back to the original question, what was before nothing?

We also have to remember that we know nothing about nothing. At some point we had an undividable particles, called atoms. Now we have sub-particles. In the future we'll go far smaller particles or energyfields than that. At that point we still know nothing about nothing.

By that time, the Milky Way will have merged with Andromeda and Canis Major

In cosmology, the question 'but what I've always wondered is, what came before the Big Bang? Nothing shall come of nothing, as Lear said.' is considered meaningless.

Anyway, time is intrinsically linked to 3 dimensional space.

In physics, spacetime (also spacetime, space time or spacetime continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The spacetime of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the 'fourth dimension'. By combining space and time into a single manifold called Minkowski space, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

In non-relativistic classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time for an object as seen by an observer outside the field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Without space (the Universe) time may not exist at all so the answer to the question would simply be a lack of space and time which results in 'The ultimate free lunch'

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called virtual particle pairs are known as quantum fluctuations.

http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

[worth reading the link]

There is a very good book on this but be warned, it's heavy going IB!

http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-Directions/dp/0195117980

In cosmology, the question 'but what I've always wondered is, what came before the Big Bang? Nothing shall come of nothing, as Lear said.' is considered meaningless.

Anyway, time is intrinsically linked to 3 dimensional space.

In physics, spacetime (also spacetime, space time or spacetime continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The spacetime of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the 'fourth dimension'. By combining space and time into a single manifold called Minkowski space, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

In non-relativistic classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time for an object as seen by an observer outside the field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Without space (the Universe) time may not exist at all so the answer to the question would simply be a lack of space and time which results in 'The ultimate free lunch'

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called virtual particle pairs are known as quantum fluctuations.

http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

[worth reading the link]

There is a very good book on this but be warned, it's heavy going IB!

http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-Directions/dp/0195117980

Ok, well that answers that then. I'm satisfied. Next topic.

I'm not satisfied when we talk about spacetime

The way I see this universe is that we only have three dimensions.

Time, as we know it now, is simply an measurement how fast information from one location in space can reach to another location in space. Currently the speed of information is set to be the same as speed of photons traveling through space. But why that should be the limiting factor? What restricts the speed of photons to 300.000km/s? Is it so, that every photon is emitted from the electrons at the same speed, or could there be an medium, which we don't yet understand, which makes the photons travel through space in the way as sound waves travel through water?

What if there are particles which travel far faster than the speed of light and we are simply too focused to monitor things which we can detect with our primitive sensors, our eyes. I'm betting a beer that the speed of light will be in the future considered as a milestone, not the winner in the universal speed competition.

While on the topic. It's quite funny to think how many photons there are flying around us. When we look outside and see the scenery, we actually see the photons which our Sun emitted 150.000.000km away. These photons reach the Earth, bounce from different surfaces of the landscape and finally reach our eyes.

I'm not satisfied when we talk about spacetime

The way I see this universe is that we only have three dimensions.

Time, as we know it now, is simply an measurement how fast information from one location in space can reach to another location in space. Currently the speed of information is set to be the same as speed of photons traveling through space. But why that should be the limiting factor? What restricts the speed of photons to 300.000km/s? Is it so, that every photon is emitted from the electrons at the same speed, or could there be an medium, which we don't yet understand, which makes the photons travel through space in the way as sound waves travel through water?

What if there are particles which travel far faster than the speed of light and we are simply too focused to monitor things which we can detect with our primitive sensors, our eyes. I'm betting a beer that the speed of light will be in the future considered as a milestone, not the winner in the universal speed competition.

Quantum entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.

Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc. performed on entangled particles are found to be appropriately correlated. For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise. Because of the nature of quantum measurement, however, this behavior gives rise to effects that can appear paradoxical: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g. by collapsing a number of superimposed states); and in the case of entangled particles, such action must be on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.

Such phenomena were the subject of a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen,[1] describing what came to be known as the EPR paradox, and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter.[2][3] Einstein and others considered such behavior to be impossible, as it violated the local realist view of causality (Einstein referred to it as "spooky action at a distance"),[4] and argued that the accepted formulation of quantum mechanics must therefore be incomplete. Later, however, the counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics were verified experimentally.[5] Experiments have been performed involving measuring the polarization or spin of entangled particles in different directions, which by producing violations of Bell's inequality demonstrate statistically that the local realist view cannot be correct. This has been shown to occur even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement: there is no lightspeed or slower influence that can pass between the entangled particles.[6] Recent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one part in 10,000 of the light travel time between them.[7] According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly.[8][9] It is not possible, however, to use this effect to transmit classical information at faster-than-light speeds[10] (see Faster-than-light → Quantum mechanics).

Quantum entanglement is an area of extremely active research by the physics community, and its effects have been demonstrated experimentally with photons, electrons, molecules the size of buckyballs,[11][12] and even small diamonds.[13][14] Research is also focused on the utilization of entanglement effects in communication and computation.

[..]

The hidden variables theory fails, however, when we consider measurements of the spin of entangled particles along different axes (for example, along any of three axes which make angles of 120 degrees). If a large number of pairs of such measurements are made (on a large number of pairs of entangled particles), then statistically, if the local realist or hidden variables view were correct, the results would always satisfy Bell's inequality. A number of experiments have shown in practice, however, that Bell's inequality is not satisfied. This tends to confirm that the original formulation of quantum mechanics is indeed correct, in spite of its apparently paradoxical nature. Even when measurements of the entangled particles are made in moving relativistic reference frames, in which each measurement (in its own relativistic time frame) occurs before the other, the measurement results remain correlated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

my logical conclusion: "before the big bang there was big silence."

Perhaps our universe is just a tiny little fraction of gazillion times larger and older entity. An atom in the grande universe.

Finding the ultimate question to "42" would be quite boring actually, unless it would reveal new questions.

Expressing the ultimate source of the universe in terms accessible to human powers of reasoning is going to take a long wait.

For us Christians, it is so much easier!

It seems agreed that the universe is expanding into space.

What happens when the universe reaches the edge of space - what lies beyond the borders of space?

If there is no border, if space is infinite, then eventually all galaxies will be out of sight of each other, all stars within a galaxy will be out of sight of each other, all planets rotating around stars will be so far distant that no gravitational force will be exerted, thus dead planets will drift away from mother stars. There will just be zero temperature, zero light, zero life.

It seems agreed that the universe is expanding into space.

What happens when the universe reaches the edge of space - what lies beyond the borders of space?

The Universe is not expanding into space, the Universe IS space. The problem with fields such as this is that much of it is counter-intuitive. It doesn't seem to make sense that the Universe doesn't HAVE to have anything to expand into. It doesn't seem to make sense that time may not have existed before the so called big bang.

If there is no border, if space is infinite, then eventually all galaxies will be out of sight of each other, all stars within a galaxy will be out of sight of each other, all planets rotating around stars will be so far distant that no gravitational force will be exerted, thus dead planets will drift away from mother stars. There will just be zero temperature, zero light, zero life.

Einstein's work on relativity suggested a non static Universe but that didn't seem to make sense so he introduced the cosmological constant.

In cosmology, the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ) is the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917 as an addition to his theory of general relativity to "hold back gravity" and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept as his "greatest blunder" after Hubble's 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside our own Local Group are expanding away from each other, implying an overall expanding Universe. From 1929 until the early 1990s, most cosmology researchers assumed the cosmological constant to be zero.

Since the 1990s, several developments in observational cosmology, especially the discovery of the accelerating universe from distant supernovae in 1998, and also independent evidence from the cosmic microwave background and large galaxy redshift surveys, have shown that the mass-energy density of the universe includes around 70% in dark energy. While dark energy is poorly understood at a fundamental level, the main required properties of dark energy are that it dilutes much more slowly than matter as the universe expands, and that it clusters much more weakly than matter, or not at all. The cosmological constant is the simplest possible form of dark energy since it is constant in both space and time, and this leads to the current standard model of cosmology known as the Lambda-CDM model, which provides a good fit to many cosmological observations as of 2014.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Many many years of research on the ultimate fate of the Universe was done to judge if the Universe was going to keep on expanding, collapse or just have enough speed/mass to come to a halt. As mentioned in the piece above, it was discovered that at very great distance the Universe is not only expanding but that the expansion is accelerating. It appears that heat death is the ultimate fate of the Universe.

It seems agreed that the universe is expanding into space.

What happens when the universe reaches the edge of space - what lies beyond the borders of space?

If there is no border, if space is infinite, then eventually all galaxies will be out of sight of each other, all stars within a galaxy will be out of sight of each other, all planets rotating around stars will be so far distant that no gravitational force will be exerted, thus dead planets will drift away from mother stars. There will just be zero temperature, zero light, zero life.

Not correct to say all galaxies are moving apart. Andromeda is approaching at 124000 km/sec. There is nowhere in the universe that is empty of stars, that astronomers have noticed.

There is nowhere in the universe that is empty of stars, that astronomers have noticed.

That would depend on frame of reference. Nearest star to us is Proxima Centauri at around 4 light years which is quite a distance in between with no star.

Also....

In physical cosmology, galaxy filaments, also called supercluster complexes, great walls, or "great attractors",[1][2] are amongst the largest known cosmic structures in the universe. They are massive, thread-like formations, with a typical length of 50 to 80 megaparsecs h-1, that form the boundaries between large voids in the universe.[3] Filaments consist of gravitationally bound galaxies; parts where a large number of galaxies are very close to each other (in cosmic terms) are called superclusters.

In the standard model of the evolution of the universe, galactic filaments form along and follow web-like strings of dark matter.[4] It is thought that this dark matter dictates the structure of the Universe on the grandest of scales. Dark matter gravitationally attracts baryonic matter, and it is this "normal" matter that astronomers see forming long, thin walls of super-galactic clusters.

Discovery of structures larger than superclusters began in the 1980s. In 1987, astronomer R. Brent Tully of the University of Hawaii's Institute of Astronomy identified what he called the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex. In 1989, the CfA2 Great Wall was discovered,[5] followed by the Sloan Great Wall in 2003.[6] On January 11, 2013, researchers led by Roger Clowes of the University of Central Lancashire announced the discovery of a large quasar group, the Huge-LQG, which dwarfs previously discovered galaxy filaments in size.[7] In November 2013, using gamma-ray bursts as reference points, astronomers discovered the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall, an extremely huge filament measuring more than 10 billion light-years across.[8][9][10]

In 2006, scientists announced the discovery of three filaments aligned to form one of the largest structures known to humanity,[11] composed of densely packed galaxies and enormous blobs of gas known as Lyman-alpha blobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament

While this does not show absence of stars it does show that some areas are far more densely populated. That being said, on a universal scale there seems to be a fairly even distribution of stars (and matter) which is what the OP is about. Without the inflation model or something like it, quite why there is such evenness is somewhat of a mystery. I must admit that I've never really liked the inflation model because it seems a bit too easy.

All interesting stuff though.

Image of said filaments...

I wish to go back on my earlier post about galaxies / star systems / etc., and suggest that although if the universe keeps expanding the galaxies must essentially widen the separation, this will remove the minute effect of gravitational pull of one galaxy upon it's neighbours and thus allow each galaxy to tend to draw closer to it's main mass - thus implode.

Supernovae popping allover the universe.

Running on EXP3 on True. "What came before the big bang?"

Some space scientists still believe it could be a repeating cycle. Big Bang. expand. contract. Big Bang etc.

I think this is what Seastallion meant in post #2. Makes sense but

How did it all start?

It was what I meant.

In the scheme of things, it is hard enough for this mere mortal to comprehend the scale of time and space involved in the theoretical cycle, let alone the "beginning" of it all.

I concede that that is an argument for God.

On the other hand, we don't understand the time-space continuum.

Higgs bosun may give clues, but it is still incomprehensible overall.

I quote Tennyson;

Flower in the crannied wall,

I pluck you out of the cranny.

I hold you in my hand, root and all,

Little flower if I could understand

What you are, root and all and all in all,

I would know what God and Man is.

(forgive me if I misquote...I haven't recalled that verse for maybe decades)

I always took that to mean, if he understood literally "all in all" i.e beyond the atoms, beyond the hadrons, beyond the quarks, beyond the bosuns.....he would indeed know what God (and thus Man) is.

I think you are correct. I have been reading the words of Ervin Lazslo, and a recent book The Basic Code of the Universe; basically readable for a layman. Its wonderful that the current speculation returns to an ancient vedantic concept of the Akashic Field informing matter. For these theorists, much is explained by this paridgm. Of course, the question still remains, if there is a turtle holding up the earth, what holds up the turtle? Another turtle! And what holds up this turtle? Turtles! Turtles, all the way down! (Paraphrase some old bishop). Even when we get so very close to theoretically grasping what looks like the beginning we can simply go no further in understanding in what "space" the singularity, the collapse, or the expansion took place, unless we invite theology. Amazing conundrum. I personally have always found the concept of Akasha to explain many things.

After reading all of this.....my head hurts.