(I apologize for not doing a search that would have led me to similar discussions, but it seems to be down at the moment. However, I know you all have likely answered these questions a million times before, so if you'd rather link me to existing discussions once the search feature is operational again, or off-site links, that would be fine with me)

I didn't post this in "Against the Mainstream", since I do believe the Big Bang theory is the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe. However, I still can't wrap my puny brain around a couple of things. Let me explain:

When I was a kid, and first became fascinated by astronomy, I used to believe "empty space" had always existed, and that the Big Bang meant that matter had exploded into it, and was in constant expansion. Seemed simple enough to understand, and the idea of what lay "outside the universe" seemed nonsensical to me, since I thought "empty space" was just that, an infinite void. To me, "traveling outside the universe" meant somehow outrunning the expanding matter so that you'd end up with all the matter in the universe behind you, and pure emptiness ahead. What happened before the Big Bang didn't interest me, since I felt the concept of a "primeval atom" coming into existence out of the blue was not really at odds with physics as we know them. Simple, right?

However, later on, I read that time and space themselves were born with the Big Bang, and that "nothing" existed before, and "nothing" exists beyond the universe. This of course, made me wonder just what "nothing" meant. I mean, forgive me if I sound hopelessly thick, but if the concentration of all matter that gave birth to the universe existed even one nanosecond before the Big Bang, then it existed somewhere, not in "our" space-time, since that was contained within the aforementioned concentration of matter, but if it was in existence before the Bang, then something had to contain it. Whether this mystery dimension vanished with the Bang, I don't know (heck, obviously I don't know if such a dimension existed to begin with), but it seems only logical to me.

Now the second thing eating away at me... What lies "outside the universe". Again, I know I'm oversimplifying, but... If space itself is expanding, then isn't it exapnding into something? If the universe is finite and expanding, then something has to be containing it, just as something containing the "primeval atom" just before the Big Bang.

So my questions, as a layman with an interest in astronomy but also a lack of serious knowledge about it, do you think modern (or future) science will ever arrive at a concept of "nothing" that doesn't necessarily mean "the absence of everything"? Could a still-undiscovered dimension "hold" our universe, and could something along those lines have "held" the Big Bang? Usually, the answers I've read online have been along the lines of " the universe is literally all that exists, so nothing could be outside it", and "time was born at the Big Bang, so there was no before", both of which leave me unsatisfied, since they sound a bit like circular reasoning.

Any and all thoughts are welcome, except perhaps the ones saying "oi, shut yer hole, you nutter!"

How about a welcome instead?

Actually no one will say that because they are all very polite here. BA doesn't like people being rude which is one of the great things about this place. No need for asbestos undies no mater how dumb the question, or statement.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Thanks for the welcome, PhantomWolf! I've lurked here before, and I agree, this place is very cool in terms of how adult the discussions are handled. Looking forward to a long stint here

First...Welcome aboard, Eldaran. =D> (hope you like puns)
Venezuela, too - 8) (My daughter just married a guy from Uruguay)

I'm a businessman playing with astronomy here 'cause I love it, so this might just get things moving but I could be off here and there...

Inflation Theory is quite popular and one you should find interesting regarding the beginning (at least close to it). There are many slifht variations of it, however. Keep in mind that mass can come from energy and vice versa. Mass sorta condensed from energy like water droplets from a cloud of vapor.

Scientists are working with down to 1/t^43 second. A lot can happen in a nanosecond. At t = 0, phsyics breaks down as unificiation of all the forces has not been accomplished.

M-brane Theory (supersting theory) considers that two "branes" colllided which may have created our universe. This means some "things" existed prior to t=0. That might interest you, too.

I am astounded that man can know so much. We really aren't that big when considering the size of the universe.

There is no current method to determine what lies beyond the universe. M-theory does suggest more "out there" but science makes little or no effort to address transcendentalism.

In regards to "nothing", I tend to say much about it but it still amounts to nothing.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Nothing is one of the most difficult concepts for one to wrap their brains around. In this case, it means no matter, no space, and no time, and maybe even no energy.

If time starts at t=0, and t >= 0 for all t, then there is no "before" to speak of.

It's frequently said that time, space, and matter were all formed in the big bang. This isn't like "the flower formed in the ground", and the flower is constructed using material lying around. It's definitely not like "I couldn't see you until you left your house, so you were created at that time, and before then existed outside of the universe (which excludes your house). It's more like there was nothing to speak of, and then there was.

Defining the universe as all matter, energy, and space, then there is no "outside". That word doesn't even have any meaning.

You mean like, say, more space? Let's include that in the universe, too, then.

The surface of a baloon is finite and expanding, too. What is it that contains that? Space?

Look at the word carefully. "No thing". If the word already has a perfectly good definition, why does science need to change it?

Why do you think in terms of something like this not being part of the universe? Basically, you seem to want to redefine universe, but universe is a flexible term. Depending on the situation, you can use "universe" to describe a shoe box.

I'm not sure I see the cycle.

What's outside something that includes everything?

What comes before when the concept of "before" is meaningless?

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

There is a good book to read if you want to improve your understaning of the "universe". The author is Edwin A. Abbot, the title is "Flatland". I'm sure you could find/order a copy at your local book store/library/ebay.

It discusses the concept of a universe in terms of a two dimential "flatland", a one dimential "lineland" and a three dimential "sphereland". Toward the end it discusses the various impacts the "higher" universes have when they interact with the lower universes.

Dang! I found it in print on line and free. Check here Ya don't have ta spend a dime!

Facinating stuff. Only a hundred pages or so. Should leave you in silent contemplation for hours.

__________________
It's just one of those damn things of which there are many few. -- Dan Blocker

I don't know who it was but when asked the question "what was there before the big bang" a famous theorist/cosmologist replied, "God made hell for people who ask that question".

Everyone, sorry for not replying sooner.

George, thanks for the welcome! I've never been to Uruguay, but I do know a few Uruguayans here in town. Cool people 8)

Superstring theory sounds fascinating, and right up my alley. I'm just glad there's something that addresses what I'm asking. After reading "Time began at the Big Bang, so there was no Before" or "Universe = Everything, so there's no Outside" for about the hundredth time, I started to wonder if I had some fundamental intellectual deficiency that either kept me from understanding some basic concepts, or kept me from adequately phrasing my questions. I guess the "lack of serious knowledge" part of my interest in astronomy needs to be fixed ASAP I got through the article on Quantum Physics in the Rotten Library (say what you will about rotten.com itself, but the Library is quite a useful little site, especially if you're new to the given subject), and now I'm ready for more.

Ut: The reason I say that those statements seem like circular reasoning is that we (general "we" of course) are defining the evidence used to answer the question. In the case of "what was there before the Big Bang?", the stock answer is "Time began with the BB, so there is no before. Move along now". It's a little too convenient. What we call Time began with the BB, yes, but does that preclude the existence of a now-gone dimension than enabled the concenration of matter that exploded in the BB to appear /form? That's what my initial post was concerned with. Same for the question regarding the "outside" of the Universe.

Russ: Thanks so much for the link to Flatland! I will get started on it tonight

Evan: That's a hilarious quote

It is a very rough "alley" from what I hear. Brian Greene's book "Elegant Universe" and also "Fabric of the Cosmos" are great books to help you down the path.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

In the current BB model, we define time as starting at t=0. If anything existed before that time, we can never view it, and so it doesn't exist to us. You may as well search for God.

Basically, if you define the universe to be all that exists, then there is no outside. Period. It's like saying if I define y = 2, then there's no arguing with it.

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

But it is possible that something existed, then. Even if we may never observe it. That was my point.

And if I define the Universe as "all that exists within space-time, including the continuum itself", am I automatically allowing for the existence of an "outside"? Does it really come down to semantics?

I don't think that we can truely concieve "nothing". I no I can't. For example... if an "outside" is possible, I see it as a cloudy grey... tis odd. Oh, yea, read the "Ender's Game" and the sequels they use "outside" just read all of 'em and you'll get it.

--iFire