Stephen Hawking: What was before the Big Bang?

[Baronage-Phase]

The Beginning of TIme

^^^^Here's his lecture and he does explain in detail.

" The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."

But his recent statement is a declaration that in his view there was nothing as in "nothing existed" before the big bang.

 

[editor]

Why?
This is today.... does it not deserve a thread of its own?

It's exactly the same topic.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

It's exactly the same topic.

No. With respect it's not.
It's the first time Hawking has said he believes that "nothing existed before the big bang". Up until now he has said nobody can know....he's now come out with a definitive.
It is news worthy and quite frankly it deserved to be in a frigging banner across everything today.

Just saying...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No. With respect it's not.
It's the first time Hawking has said he believes that "nothing existed before the big bang". Up until now he has said nobody can know....he's come out with a definitive.
It is news worthy and quite frankly it deserved to be in a frigging banner across everything today.

He's not really said 'nobody can know'. He's basically saying that the question meaningless. Doesn't seem to have changed his mind on that - still uses the same analogy.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

He's not really said 'nobody can know'. He's basically saying that the question meaningless. Doesn't seem to have changed his mind on that - still uses the same analogy.

No. In his interview .. the one that Editor posted today...he says "nothing existed before the big bang".

Post #80

 

[Baronage-Phase]

For those who missed it.....

 

[8ball]

No. In his interview .. the one that Editor posted today...he says "nothing existed before the big bang".

Post #80

For given values of "nothing".

He's pretty tentative tbf, explaining that his approach is an idealised Euclidean approach to quantum gravity.
I think it might turn out a bit like the idea of the Earth as an ideal sphere - a useful model, but one that soon gets inaccurate and bumpy once you zoom in a bit.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Still not sure this is news. Same idea, same analogy, perhaps not strictly accurate language when trying to explain it.

Hawkings' pal Roger Penrose is still keen on his Conformal Cyclic Universe idea, I see. Penrose suggests that a Big Bang is the result of the heat death of a previous universe.

https://physicsworld.com/a/roger-penrose-asks-if-a-cyclic-cosmology-is-lurking-in-ligo-noise/

I read his book on this and tried to understand all the maths, but didn't quite. But this idea does potentially solve a very particular riddle, namely the special state of low entropy that existed a moment after the Big Bang and where it may have come from.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

For given values of "nothing".

He's pretty tentative tbf, explaining that his approach is an idealised Euclidean approach to quantum gravity.
I think it might turn out a bit like the idea of the Earth as an ideal sphere - a useful model, but one that soon gets inaccurate and bumpy once you zoom in a bit.

Well...if you accept the expanding universe theory and that it expanded from a single point that is infinitesimally small....and you accept that time and space began simultaneously in a singularity then his idea.. his opinion ...that nothing existed before that singularity is revolutionary ... he has been saying for years that the universe started...had a beginning...and now he is saying that there was nothing there before that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

He's been using his 'surface of Earth' analogy for years. Sorry, I don't see what's changed.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

He's been using his 'surface of Earth' analogy for years. Sorry, I don't see what's changed.

Well...he has always said there was a beginning which doesn't imply nothing prior to a beginning. He has not said that the universe could have been a spawn of another universe. He has come out and declared that there was nothing there.
Even Fillipenko declared that before the big bang that the laws of physics still would have existed.

 

[8ball]

Well...if you accept the expanding universe theory and that it expanded from a single point that is infinitesimally small....and you accept that time and space began simultaneously in a singularity then his idea.. his opinion ...that nothing existed before that singularity is revolutionary ... he has been saying for years that the universe started...had a beginning...and now he is saying that there was nothing there before that.

The "South of the South Pole" analogy is nothing new. These are just quirks of language too. He is really saying the question of "before" is meaningless within the model he ascribes to. There is no timepoint where there is "nothing".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well...he has always said there was a beginning which doesn't imply nothing prior to a beginning. He has not said that the universe could have been a spawn of another universe. He has come out and declared that there was nothing there.
Even Fillipenko declared that before the big bang that the laws of physics still would have existed.

I think you're still missing the central point of the analogy, which is that the question itself has no meaning. There was no 'before' the big bang, just as there is no south of the south pole on Earth's surface.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

For given values of "nothing".

He's pretty tentative tbf, explaining that his approach is an idealised Euclidean approach to quantum gravity.
I think it might turn out a bit like the idea of the Earth as an ideal sphere - a useful model, but one that soon gets inaccurate and bumpy once you zoom in a bit.

He uses the Euclidian approach as a tool to describe his theory because it's useful. Lets face it...as a tool it allows for anything he can imagine.

But he still says...for the first time I add yet again.... that before the big bang there was nothing.
Maybe he will elaborate further this week but to be honest it is the first time I've heard or read him state that nothing existed ...
In the past.he has said it is a meaningless question...but he answered it in that interview the other day and I'm pretty sure he knew exactly what he was saying.

 

[8ball]

He uses the Euclidian approach as a tool to describe his theory because it's useful. Lets face it...as a tool it allows for anything he can imagine.

No, it doesn’t. That’s the point.

I find it more likely he chose a word badly than got confused about the fundamentals of the model.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

No, it doesn’t. That’s the point.

I find it more likely he chose a word badly than got confused about the fundamentals of the model.

Yes... maybe. Which would be out of character for him. He has said in the past that before the big bang that time existed but was different to our understanding of it... a "bent time".

 

[8ball]

Yes... maybe. Which would be out of character for him. He has said in the past that before the big bang that time existed but was different to our understanding of it... a "bent time".

3am at the quantum foam party.