Here's a link I came across when I was checking up on that. From the introduction, it seems that it's a question that has to be phrased very carefully.
The day time began marijuana.newscientist.com
From the introduction:
Don't ask me what came before the big bang, says physicist Paul Davies. Time and space only popped into existence at that instant, so the question doesn't apply. But what made it happen and where did the laws of physics come from?
And from about 3 pages into that article:
But where could we look for such an origin? Well, the theory of relativity permits space and time to possess a variety of boundaries or edges, technically known as singularities. One type of singularity exists in the centre of a black hole. Another corresponds to a past boundary of space and time at the big bang. The idea is that, as you move backwards in time, the Universe becomes more and more compressed and the curvature or warping of space-time escalates without limit, until it becomes infinite at a singularity. Very roughly, it resembles the apex of a cone, where the fabric of the cone tapers to an infinitely sharp point and ceases. It is here that space and time begin.
Once this idea is accepted, it is immediately obvious that the question "What happened before the big bang?" is meaningless. There was no such epoch as "before the big bang", because time began with the big bang. Unfortunately, the question is often answered with the bald statement "There was nothing before the big bang", and this has caused yet more misunderstandings. Many people interpret "nothing" in this context to mean empty space, but as I have been at pains to point out, space did not exist either prior to the big bang.
Absolutely nothing
Perhaps "nothing" here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question "What lies north of the North Pole?" can also be answered by "nothing", not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.
In my experience, people get very upset when told this. They think they have been tricked, verbally or logically. They suspect that scientists can't explain the ultimate origin of the Universe and are resorting to obscure and dubious concepts like the origin of time merely to befuddle their detractors. The mind-set behind such outraged objection is understandable: our brains are hard-wired for us to think in terms of cause and effect. Because normal physical causation takes place within time, with effect following cause, there is a natural tendency to envisage a chain of causation stretching back in time, either without any beginning, or else terminating in a metaphysical First Cause, or Uncaused Caused, or Prime Mover. But cosmologists now invite us to contemplate the origin of the Universe as having no prior cause in the normal sense, not because it has an abnormal or supernatural prior cause, but because there is simply no prior epoch in which a preceding causative agency--natural or supernatural--can operate.
Nevertheless cosmologists have not explained the origin of the Universe by the simple expedient of abolishing any preceding epoch. After all, why should time and space have suddenly "switched on"? The latest thinking is that this spontaneous origination of time and space is a natural consequence of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics that applies to atoms and subatomic particles, and it is characterised by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, according to which sudden and unpredictable fluctuations occur in all observable quantities. Quantum fluctuations are not caused by anything--they are genuinely spontaneous and intrinsic to nature at its deepest level.
Impossible predictions
For example, take a collection of uranium atoms suffering radioactive decay due to quantum processes in their nuclei. There will be a definite time period, the half-life, after which half of the nuclei present should have decayed. But according to Heisenberg it is not possible, even in principle, to predict when a given nucleus will decay. If you ask, having seen a particular nucleus decay, why the decay event happened at that moment rather than some other, there is no deeper reason, no underlying set of causes, that explains it. It just happens.
And one final little bit, where things really get hairy:
In spite of these technical obstacles, one may say quite generally that once space and time are made subject to quantum principles, the possibility immediately arises of space and time "switching on", or popping into existence, without the need for prior causation, entirely in accordance with the laws of quantum physics.
Very weird. General Relativity, the basic theory behind most cosmology, is beyond me, but it's not in the realm of theology, many of its predictions have been verified experimentally. I know enough about quantum theory to know you can't expect "common sense" intuition about the physical world to apply to the molecular/atomic/subatomic realm. A web search revealed that the Big Bang theory is under the same kind of attack in certain circles as evolution is. Oh well, it's just a theory, there are plenty of parts that aren't very well understood. But as with the evolutionary critics, there didn't seem to be any competing hypothesis other that some unspecified divine intervention. Which is ok theologically, but problematic scientifically.
Cheers, Dan. |
