Stephen Hawking Says He Knows What Happened Before the Big Bang

[dynamo]

by Brandon Specktor; Live Science
(source: http://www.riseearth.com/2018/03/ste...nows-what.html)

At the time of the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe was smooshed into an incredibly hot, infinitely dense speck of matter.

But what happened before that? It turns out, famed physicist Stephen Hawking has an answer, which he gave in an interview with his almost-as-famous fellow scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson. Hawking discusses these ideas and others on the series finale of Tyson's "StarTalk" TV show, which airs this Sunday (March 4) at 11 p.m. ET on the National Geographic Channel.

Hawking's answer to the question "What was there before there was anything?" relies on a theory known as the "no-boundary proposal."



"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking told Tyson, according to Popular Science.

To understand the theory better, grab your universal remote (that is, your remote that controls the universe), and hit Rewind. As scientists know now, the universe is constantly expanding. As you move backward in time, then, the universe contracts. Rewind far enough (about 13.8 billion years), and the entire universe shrinks to the size of a single atom, Hawking said.

This subatomic ball of everything is known as the singularity (not to be confused with the technological singularity during which artificial intelligence will overtake humans). Inside this extremely small, massively dense speck of heat and energy, the laws of physics and time as we know them cease to function. Put another way, time as we understand it literally did not exist before the universe started to expand. Rather, the arrow of time shrinks infinitely as the universe becomes smaller and smaller, never reaching a clear starting point.

According to TechTimes, Hawking says during the show that before the Big Bang, time was bent — "It was always reaching closer to nothing but didn't become nothing," according to the article. Essentially, "there was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's point of perspective."

In in a lecture on the no-boundary proposal, Hawking wrote: "Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang."

This isn't the first time Hawking has discussed this theory. He previously delivered lectures on the topic and starred in a free documentary about it, available on YouTube. Tune into StarTalk on Sunday to hear Tyson and Hawking delve deeper on the subject, as well whether Isaac Newton would be more excited to learn about black holes or Tinder.

[Satori]

This is the very theory that Hawking put forward in his book A Brief History Of Time more than 20 years ago. It remains a theory and always will. Things of this nature cannot be proved or disproved by mankind.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I shouldn't argue with a theoretical physicist, much less one of Hawking's calibre. But I don't agree with his theory.

Purely from a conceptual point of view (not scientific, in other words), I just believe that the Universe emerged, was birthed, from another older, dying Universe (that came before). There could be, and likely is, many Universes, across many dimensions.

But I feel they follow a pattern of birth, death, transformation and rebirth – like everything else. It seems like a universal theme to me. What there was before the Universe, was simply another Universe. After a Universe lives its life and dies out, maybe they contract (in a 'Big Crunch') and then, for want of a better term, 're-explode'.

Perhaps they do this forever.

[DeDukshyn]

That sounds really weak to me. He didn't explain anything. Just an incredibly loose hypothesis to try to explain something that appears "impossible" from a human rationale perspective, to make it "possible", because it had to have happened, because we have a Universe.


I much prefer the personified abstract concept that parallels some religious stories (ancient texts) where Lucifer wanted to be his own God, and was "cast" from the "heavens" (described by hawking as the singularity, I guess), this "casting" is the big bang and the expansion of our physical universe. This Universe is Lucifer's "Being" with the atoms held like frost crystals in distinct separation by the forces of separation (aka Satan), due to the vibrational proximity to the "pole" of force we refer to as "Satan".

This physical Universe is the realm of "Lucifer", and the "Christ" is Lucifer's counterpart; the original plan for humans was to become a conduit to reconnect the "Christ consciousness" to "physical form (matter)" within this "Universe".

If you take the religion out of the words you have a description of the creation of our Universe, and the purpose of humanity.

Another way I have heard it put is when one realm expands as far as it can it then, and only then, begins to flow over into other densities - from a singularity, to a realm / universe.

So how did Lucifer and Satan become symbols of evil? We are "trapped" in this realm, or so it seems, and when we entertain that (from a higher level) it is undesirable - an "evil". Also, the "forces of separation" in this realm are very strong, and have negative influence on consciousness - from this, what we refer to "evil", is created. This is why those symbols to us are "evil" - just due to location and the influence of the forces that actually sustain this universe.

Anyway, sorry for injecting meta gobbly-gook into cold hard scientific rationale ...

[Sunny-side-up]

My gut says much older than 13.8 billion year anyway.
I think what we call the universe is made up off older and older spreading out waves, all off which we cannot see from our reality any more, how old the oldest wave, god only knows 0.o

Plus I don't think we understand Light and time properly (well at least the old established science view of light and time)

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Sunny-side-up (here)
My gut says much older than 13.8 billion year anyway.

Yes that too. But if the Universe is forever contracting, expanding, contracting, expanding - like an eternally beating heart - then how old is a single heartbeat? can't really measure it. Maybe the Universe(s) have always been beating, and shall beat forever.

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
I much prefer the personified abstract concept that parallels some religious stories (ancient texts) where Lucifer wanted to be his own God, and was "cast" from the "heavens" (described by hawking as the singularity, I guess), this "casting" is the big bang and the expansion of our physical universe.

Interesting idea. Not sure if you mean literally, as per the myth. Personally, I think it's just a slice of human drama, superimposed onto reality, to try and make sense of reality. The Universe is billions of years of ancient, whilst religion (and humanity) has been around for a nanosecond. I don't think there's link between religious superstition and the actually reality (or nature) of the Universe.

The labels satan and lucifer don't resonate with me. Another control mechanism of our dear beloved churches to frighten us into submission. I see the Universe as all-energy. The slower the vibration of energy, the more dense it becomes, and therefore the more substantially material. The physicality of this matter we 'inhabit' is nothing more than slowed down, or 'congealed' energy. We are spiritual beings native to a high spiritual vibration, who have, dimensional-speaking, 'shifted-down' in our frequency, and incarnated into this lower, material reality to have an experience. One to enrich us (at least that's the goal).

Sorry, this is getting into the pseudo-mystical, and slightly off-topic!

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)

Posted by Sunny-side-up (here)
My gut says much older than 13.8 billion year anyway.

Yes that too. But if the Universe is forever contracting, expanding, contracting, expanding - like an eternally beating heart - then how old is a single heartbeat? can't really measure it. Maybe the Universe(s) have always been beating, and shall beat forever.

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
I much prefer the personified abstract concept that parallels some religious stories (ancient texts) where Lucifer wanted to be his own God, and was "cast" from the "heavens" (described by hawking as the singularity, I guess), this "casting" is the big bang and the expansion of our physical universe.

Interesting idea. Not sure if you mean literally, as per the myth. ...

I started the post with the disclaimers of "personified, and "abstract". That should answer you question. Consider that this 'fable" was very originally intended to describe the creation of the universe and the purpose of humanity, and that maybe some entities that saw themselves as "rulers", who knew this story, decided to make a religion out of it to control the masses for the purpose of distracting us from the true intention of its message.

"Lucifer" - as I refer to it is not the religious connotation - you have to read what I wrote objectively, with ALL religious connotation and personification stripped from it and from your response to it, then it might start to make sense as a way to explain something to a people who would have no understanding of the cosmos, such as to the small group of humans on earth that were "rebooted" after the last cataclysm.

Consider we "shifted down" from a higher universe (density, whatever appropriate term) to occupy this physical realm for the purpose I indicate; perhaps even via the mechanism of the big bang, or, later, independently as spiritual beings for the purpose of creation and exploration from the higher plane, but in this physical one ... " ... in this world, not of this world"

Sorry for the off topic. I always wanted to start a discussion around these ideas, maybe I'll start that thread one day

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Yeh cool, no worries, I see what you mean in your analogy - I think. Are you saying if one were to personify the universe, it could be likened to lucifer, which stands in opposition to the spiritual realms, personified by Christ? If so, I think I understand what you mean, but only as an analogy, and only if they were personified.

What you suggest, for the origin of this myth, I think quite likely - that 'rulers' (off world or otherwise), concocted the story, or embellished this analogy, and pedalled it to the masses to control them.

[O Donna]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)
I shouldn't argue with a theoretical physicist, much less one of Hawking's calibre. But I don't agree with his theory.

Purely from a conceptual point of view (not scientific, in other words), I just believe that the Universe emerged, was birthed, from another older, dying Universe (that came before). There could be, and likely is, many Universes, across many dimensions.

But I feel they follow a pattern of birth, death, transformation and rebirth – like everything else. It seems like a universal theme to me. What there was before the Universe, was simply another Universe. After a Universe lives its life and dies out, maybe they contract (in a 'Big Crunch') and then, for want of a better term, 're-explode'.

Perhaps they do this forever.

Hi-story/ tall-story is of beginnings and endings.

There is before the book is opened.
There is after the book is closed.

There is before beginnings.
There is after endings.

[Red Skywalker]

That poor man, stuck in his math and has lost creativity.
One thing I would like to ask him:

Was there really only One Big Bang possible? (The 'God Creation myth')
Or could it be that the Universe is constantly emerging from many small plops, packed together according the best sphere packing and their negative polarized energy comes from absolute coldness in an infinite sponge like space?

I am afraid any scientist seems to be unable to really think out of the box and refuses to listen to any other very possible ideas.

Think for example to the theory of Electric Universe:

Quote from Rational WIKI, The Electric Universe:

"Electric Universe (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology. However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next."

Why not investigate if their own theories gives no or unexplainable answers? Why not?
Was only Einstein a god?
Nobody has the truth yet because we are still searching without a real workable solution.

To me Cosmology is stuck now and has reached it's evolutionary end without a solution or answer. It's just such a mess, I had to create my own ideas to get hold of the strange, primitive and very hostile world I have come to. Science and religions couldn't help me. (Although, The Flying Spaghetti Monster religion was the best)

[Satori]

Posted by O Donna (here)

Posted by Star Mariner (here)
I shouldn't argue with a theoretical physicist, much less one of Hawking's calibre. But I don't agree with his theory.

Purely from a conceptual point of view (not scientific, in other words), I just believe that the Universe emerged, was birthed, from another older, dying Universe (that came before). There could be, and likely is, many Universes, across many dimensions.

But I feel they follow a pattern of birth, death, transformation and rebirth – like everything else. It seems like a universal theme to me. What there was before the Universe, was simply another Universe. After a Universe lives its life and dies out, maybe they contract (in a 'Big Crunch') and then, for want of a better term, 're-explode'.

Perhaps they do this forever.

Hi-story/ tall-story is of beginnings and endings.

There is before the book is opened.
There is after the book is closed.

There is before beginnings.
There is after endings.

Your post and the photo made me think of a post I made in 2016 on "The Absolute truth" thread, which I have copied below. My post begins with "I am an Isist":

Default Re: The absolute truth.

Because it is. Because I think.

From my post on another thread:

"Default Re: The Earth's Magnetic Field Did Not Collapse This Week



I'm an "Isist." Universe is. Infinite intelligence is. Your G-d is.

A thing (all things: corporeal or incorporeal) we perceive "is" as it is because if it weren't as it "is", then it could either not be perceived (because perhaps it does not exist) or be something other than what we perceive. (This is an example of the "anthropic principle.")

I am being human. You are being human (I assume). Non-human life forms are "being" something else.

Being human, we have control over only one thing. (Though few of us, including me, exercise plenary control of this one thing.) That one thing "is" our own thoughts (and thus our own actions or inactions). In my view, having control over only one thing must mean that we have control over the most important thing--our thoughts. Thoughts are ("is") truly things. How we beings use or misuse thought is up to each individual--which translates to the collective. The outcomes are good, bad, or indifferent. It is what it is and what it has been and will be.

We who are being human do not have any control of what other beings think and, thus, we have no control over what other beings do or do not do.

Get used to it. Let it be. "Is" is where it is."

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)
Yeh cool, no worries, I see what you mean in your analogy - I think. Are you saying if one were to personify the universe, it could be likened to lucifer, which stands in opposition to the spiritual realms, personified by Christ? If so, I think I understand what you mean, but only as an analogy, and only if they were personified.
...

Yes you are starting to get it - Lucifer and Christ (not Jesus - totally different thing) as concepts of the "First Division" or the "First Cause" - the first level of separation (the first step "down" - the one into the two). Satan provides the force to cause this division, "God" is what we call the undivided whole. The mechanism of creation requires the force of separation to act on the whole ("God") - without it, nothing would exist, except as a sea of wholeness and all-at-once-ness (sounds like the "singularity" as described by Hawking? no?). The duration of the separation creates "time", the distance of the separation creates "space" ... etc.

I see I really go need to get these concepts properly written out - it would likely be several lengthy posts to explain it all and how interconnected this all is with some of our scientific understandings as well. From the way I see it, the "casting of Satan" from the "heavens" is the big bang - the analogy does work, especially if you put the rest of the pieces together.

If my hypothesis is correct, that means that long long ago people (or some entity(s)) knew the scientific principles of the creation and our universe, and wanted us to carry this info on; the only way to do so without the understanding needed to properly carry the story, was to personify it into a simpler story that could be passed from generation to generation.

(BTW to add from my view -- some of the early biblical texts is a compilation of MUCH older texts, of unknown orgin - take the epic of Gilgamesh for example - much older than the earth is supposed to even be, based on christian creation theory, yet tells the whole exact story of Noah and the flood ... so exactly how old are these stories? We may never know ...)

The importance of this info was either turned into religious based knowledge due to not really understanding it (and taking it a bit too literally), but knowing its importance, or, via a mechanism of hiding the message in plain sight, by giving it a different or altered meaning. Either mechanism or a combo of the two all seem valid to me. (of course, some later entities would have worked "control mechanisms" into such a created "religion" as well)

Anyways, I digress from the main topic of this thread, but I do feel a little more motivated now to get these ideas properly written out. Thanks for the inquisitiveness to my words.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I think we put too much emphasis on our little lives. It clouds our vision. From that position, from the perspective of the little me, the universe is incomprehensible.

The bizarre thing is that there is anything at all. Including an original essence that had no beginning and will have no end.

The earth is just a speck of dust in a mass of swirling potential. On that earth walks tiny insignificant beings contemplating not their plight but the entire universe's.

And how long in comparison is the knowledge accumulated: the known universe is 14,000,000,000 years in the making, mankind' knowledge a mere 6,000 years, with a lot of gaps, confusion, misdirection, and errors.

Even now we cannot comprehend. Even now only allegory brings a glimmering. The realm of the gods is still a mystery.

Where all is one why ask when it began as one? It continues - as one.

[Nasu]

I don't agree with him. He clearly trumps me in intellect, however imo he is wrong. One of the fundamental laws of the universe we inhabit is cause and effect.

His theory suggests that only the effect can be measured therefore the cause is unknowable, or worse the cause never actually happened because the "bang" part gets progressively smaller and smaller the further back one looks - "Inside this extremely small, massively dense speck of heat and energy, the laws of physics and time as we know them cease to function. Put another way, time as we understand it literally did not exist before the universe started to expand. Rather, the arrow of time shrinks infinitely as the universe becomes smaller and smaller, never reaching a clear starting point."

Perhaps our understanding of the reason behind our expanding universe is similar to our current understanding of DNA, 97% of our DNA is junk DNA, so called, not useful to us at all.. To me this logic can be turned around to say we understand the usefulness of only 3% or our DNA. In my opinion, we have no understanding of the cause of the expansion of our universe, however an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... N

[Satori]

All of this is very theoretical. To me this is obvious. There are many physicists in academia and business, or both, who are extremely bright, but they can only formulate theories. What else can any of us do? These theories derive mainly in three ways: observation, mathematics, and intuition. One or the other, or some combination of all three, mostly the latter.

Einstein is generally regarded as more of an intuition or theoretical physicist. (Although the claim that he was not much at mathematics is open to debate.) Others were more mathematics and formula driven. Hawking is viewed as both intuitive and mathematic.

I highly recommend the work of physicist and educator Paul Davies. He is now with the University of Arizona or Arizona State (I think it's state) after being at a university in Australia. He is highly acclaimed, and deservedly so. He is an extremely bright and articulate writer and speaker who makes very dry and difficult math and physics concepts very understandable.

He has written many books, including the "Mind Of God" and "About Time." Both are fascinating reads. If you have any interest in gaining some understanding of the scientific, yet philosophical, if not spiritual, perspective of Universe, his books and articles are truly "must reads."

[O Donna]

Posted by Satori (here)
Your post and the photo made me think of a post I made in 2016 on "The Absolute truth" thread, which I have copied below. My post begins with "I am an Isist":

Default Re: The absolute truth.

Because it is. Because I think.

From my post on another thread:

"Default Re: The Earth's Magnetic Field Did Not Collapse This Week



I'm an "Isist." Universe is. Infinite intelligence is. Your G-d is.

A thing (all things: corporeal or incorporeal) we perceive "is" as it is because if it weren't as it "is", then it could either not be perceived (because perhaps it does not exist) or be something other than what we perceive. (This is an example of the "anthropic principle.")

I am being human. You are being human (I assume). Non-human life forms are "being" something else.

Being human, we have control over only one thing. (Though few of us, including me, exercise plenary control of this one thing.) That one thing "is" our own thoughts (and thus our own actions or inactions). In my view, having control over only one thing must mean that we have control over the most important thing--our thoughts. Thoughts are ("is") truly things. How we beings use or misuse thought is up to each individual--which translates to the collective. The outcomes are good, bad, or indifferent. It is what it is and what it has been and will be.

We who are being human do not have any control of what other beings think and, thus, we have no control over what other beings do or do not do.

Get used to it. Let it be. "Is" is where it is."

Thank you for that. Your post, in return, reminded me of neuroplasticity and not being dialed into just one way of considering the 'theory of everything'. After all, by definition, theory is theory which is, of course, not synonymous with fact.

[Jad]

I am no scientist (marketing background), so please don’t take my opinion seriously on this matter! From our point of view on earth, the universe seems expanding outwards, but I think all of its infinite entirety already exists simultaneously. It’s like turning on a flashlight in infinite darkness, when the light penetrates the darkness outwards it will give the illusion of expansion but the only thing expanding is our awareness (because of the flashlight) in this infinite darkness. I don’t know if I am explaining this correctly. What I am trying to say is that if we look at the situation in terms of the potentiality of the universe to exist and its actual existence. What is the difference between the two? None because both are the same idea but in different energetic state! In short our awareness exists in an infinite ocean of ideas and sub ideas that are waiting for us to be aware of them. What’s the biggest idea we can be aware of now? The Universe? Multiverse? God? What if there is a bigger and more all encompassing idea/concept that we don’t even have the word or description for? Does that mean that it doesn’t exist yet because the Universe is still “expanding”?

[ghostrider]

I have read the nameless nothing had a thought , and the idea of that thought was compressed along with a flea sized piece of spiritual energy and boom the Creation/universe was born ... since we can't go back there who really knows ... it's interesting to ponder anyhoo ...

[O Donna]

I've read that everything to the mind is a neurological copy of a supposedly real external world. If that doesn't blow the mind, I don't know what would. A Pandora's Box if there ever was one.

[Sunny-side-up]

Hi again Star Mariner just verifying what I said in my first idea/reply:
You said I said=

Yes that too. But if the Universe is forever contracting, expanding, contracting, expanding - like an eternally beating heart - then how old is a single heartbeat? can't really measure it. Maybe the Universe(s) have always been beating, and shall beat forever.

Not what I thought, I used to see it as beating or breaths but that imply s a singular view taken from our view point of importance.
I see it more now like our reality/we are like surfers. the whole of our personal material reality is spreading out as a wave (All we are, all that is our direct reality is that wave)

Now as our version of reality/wave spreads out it causes great and greater tension at the start point until it can hold it's empty form no more and then, snap goes the fabric of the start point creating a new energy to start in that hyper tight area. That lets in a new expansion, a new material reality, we are at this point far, far away surfing the wave following our predecessors wave and on.

That's my material reality thought, but to be honest I see it as a metaphysical illusion of our collective consciousness. It's not materially real at all.

More and more it is seen as a Hologram