Where from The Universe came?At that time universe had a temperature 1,000 billions degree and a density of 100,000 billions times of water density and had a very controversial physics and mathematics that can explain everything that every thing happened from the time of Big Bang 0.0001 second after the time zero[ Planks time] up to present day. But what happened before that time? Before the Big Bang Singularity? was it another dimension?The Big Bang Model is acceptable to us after 10-32 seconds of Planks time. Why Big Bang happened in earliest universe only? why Big Bang does not happen now? why it will not happen later? will universe end in another singularity Big crunch? or will expand continiously?
DR. Pranab Kr Bhattacharya & Mr Rupak Bhattacharya
www.unipathos.com

Well, there was nothing because it was a singularity. Meaning everything you see was infinitely small, and infinitely dense.

__________________

We don't know. It is an intersting question, but one that can only be answered with speculation. We are trying to learn enough about the universe to narrow the set of possible answers.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

The main question is one I've long wondered about. Why is the
Universe described as "starting" instantaneously, rather than over
some period of time? Maybe only a minute, or a few seconds, or
milliseconds or even nanoseconds-- but some period of time.
Everything that has happened since the Big Bang took time to
happen-- why should the Big Bang be different? And why did the
Big Bang happen only once? Why didn't it keep on happening?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"The other planets?
Well, they just happen to be there, but the point of rockets is to explore them!"
-- Kai Yeves

Time began with the Big Bang, in essence it would therefore be 'pointless' to ask what happened before then!

C Birch

edit: by antoniseb to fix QUOTE tag

Pranab
Did really time started from Big Bang Singularity? or Time was flowing forward in a lenier scale and Big Bang like events happened in most earliest time[ Planks moment] in any point of lenier timescale and probably in past many times such Big Bang like events happened. one of such Big Bang like events resulted our universe-Our Model of universe
DR, Pranab KR Bhattacharya
Mr Rupak Bhattacharya
Mr Ritwik Bhattacharya
wwwunipathos.com

Some of the greatest minds have vexed over this question; What of before. . .
The answer it would seem is simple. Nothing at all. Not even time as there was nothing time was not as yet running. From the very instant of energy to matter time was running. In that plasma state of supper hot density the universe had begun. What of the end ? As the space continues to reach out the density will continue to melt away at the structure of all. Time is part of this reality. The forth dimension. I can only direct you to Stephen Hawking's ' A brief history of time.' It helped me. If help is the right word for it.

Heres what IM thinking

If the universe "just happened" out of nothing, then why is it so wrong to assume that energy CAN be created, also out of nothing? same with matter.

if all of the "stuff" our universe is made of just exploded or "appeared" in a few seconds, maybe less, then why did it not all collapse into itself and make a big black hole? after all, the universe is pretty heavy (if you add up ALL of the matter and energy)

The big bang was an explosion of the universe, not in the universe. And time, most likely, is limited to our universe. Therefore, time came along with the matter and energy and everything else in the big bang. You can't ask how long it took to explode because there was nothing before the big bang, and only after the big bang did time become measureable.

What does that mean? How is an explosion of the Universe
different from an explosion in the Universe?

How do you know the Big Bang was an explosion of the Universe
rather than an explosion in the Universe?

What does that mean?

Why should time be limited to our Universe?

What makes you think there was nothing before the Big Bang?

Even if time did begin with the Big Bang, why couldn't the
Big Bang take time to occur? Instead of everything appearing
simultaneously, couldn't two particles appear, then two new
particles spawn off of each of the first two, then two more
off of each of those, and so on, until conditions changed and
particles stopped being created? That would take time.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"The other planets?
Well, they just happen to be there, but the point of rockets is to explore them!"
-- Kai Yeves

Because, that's what the big bang is. An explosion of the universe. Get with the program and know the facts, I can't explain everything for you because I don't feel like finding a link to a site that would just explain it all. I'm telling you what the big bang theory is about and you are asking me why is it that way. If you want to disagree fine but it doesn't make you right.

I have some familiarity with the Big Bang theory. I gave a talk
about it in one of my classes in high school in 1971, and I've
read a few books on the subject since then. 'The Big Bang' (1989)
by Joseph Silk and 'A Brief History of Time' (1988) by Stephen
Hawking are two.

I was asking you why you said what you said.

Why do you think that the Big Bang was an explosion of the
Universe, rather than an explosion in the Universe? Is it just
because that's what you read? Or do you have other reasons?

Do you know how an explosion of the Universe is different from
an explosion in the Universe, or were you just repeating what
you've read?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"The other planets?
Well, they just happen to be there, but the point of rockets is to explore them!"
-- Kai Yeves

The most honest answer offered to Pranab's question is: science hasn't enough information to answer your question.

I cannot understand why people insist on saying nothing existed before the Big Bang, including time. Given the information available, that statement is more akin to "God did it" than science.

The most honest position can be stated: our current mathematical model of the Big Bang indicates that matter, space and time were created by it, and according to the model, anything that pre-existed time=0 is beyond our current capabilities to model, and certainly beyond our ability to apply the scientific method.

Using the scientific method, which includes observable, empirical, measurable evidence, we can say nothing about what circumstances existed prior to time=0.

Well, we can say "we don't know." That's honesty snd accuracy.

Not entirely true! While it is very much a controversial proposal, there are intriguing conceptions in the mainstream, to the notion that some dimension existed previous to the Big Bang.
An extension to String Theory - "M-Theory," invokes an idea that before the Big Bang the Universe consisted of two flat four-dimensional surfaces/sheets. One of these sheets is asserted to be 'our' universe, whilst the other remains to be a hidden parallel universe. Oscillations in the parallel universe caused it to warp and collide with our universe. The resulting collision transformed the matter and energy within our universe into; Hey presto! - The Big Bang!

Make of this what you will, I contend that this is quite a stretch which would be fun to debate, however for the purposes of the forum, it would be probably better that we do have a notable theory to comprehend. I earlier affirmed that, "time began with the big bang, in essence it would therefore be 'pointless' to ask what happened before then!" Yet I would much prefer as illogical as it may be, but for the purposes of pure intrigue to concede that an idea such as M-Theory is a better method than simply affirming that before the Big Bang, nothing of any categorical nature existed.

Chris

We can say a lot about pre time=0. Currently, to make predictions that are testable would require a new understanding of time=<0.

If the big bang theory is true then why is the universe expanding at an increasing rate? If the Bang was billions of years ago wouldn't the the expansion be decreasing just as a projectile loses speed over distance?

Hi Ozzy, welcome to the BAUT forum.

I'm guessing that you think that "the Big Bang Theory" is about some explosion (it isn't). As a side note, projectiles (baseballs, bullets, ping-pong balls) lose velocity over distance because they are slowed by non-comoving atmosphere. Projectiles in a vacuum don't slow down from air resistance.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

But does a projectile in a vaccuum speed up?

If you are looking only at local effects, and ignoring gravity, no. On cosmic scales, it might be that a projectile would seem to speed up.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

You say that the big bang is not an explosion then what is it? If your going to say it was a singularity can you explain what that is?

Is it necessary that the start of the expansion of the universe be similar enough to things in our personal experience that I should have some words that describe it?

We see that the universe is expanding, and that the rate of expansion is increasing a little bit. We really don't know why yet.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak