Was there really no space-time before space-time?

as there really nothing

Explosions push equally in all directions making spheres as seen from shells in exploding supernovas, to a nuclear explosion's mushrooming clouds, or fourth of July fireworks. Our universe itself began as an explosion and is therefore an expanding sphere. Paul Atkins, equating the universe to a puff of dust where each galaxy is a dust grain, notes: "Every 5 seconds the universe expands by an amount approximately equal to the volume of our galaxy."¹ Through galaxies, like pursed fingers parting, the full universe, then, expands like a growing bubble. And while on its surface a bubble or sphere is two-dimensional – with no boundary, beginning, or end (as an abstract universe could in some ways be imagined) – real spheres (such as our universe) are themselves three-dimensional and have centers. We would seem to live within the outer boundaries of our real three-dimensional universe as opposed to living on its abstract two-dimensional surface.
With such a boundary, i.e. given a non-empty three-dimensional sphere, our universe expands at a certain rate being pushed outwards at the boundaries by and faster than the speed of light:² and light serves as a measure of time – time being the distance it travels per second. The accepted line of thought goes that: "Before the big bang in which light, for example, first emerged and began to travel (thereby establishing space and creating time) there was no space: there was no time – there was, instead, nothing." However, is this accepted view actually borne out in reason?
Our complex universe suddenly materialized from nowhere and nothing with no history and space-time itself was created with the birth of the universe? No one was there to document the fact that there was "nothing." Life and the intelligent beings the universe spawned have their roots in the mass and law of the smaller-than-atom-sized bubbling universe at the big bang. Yet, as a bubble (expanding with its own figurative "space-time continuum") must expand into pre-existent space, mustn't the bubbling universe also expand into a pre-existent and infinitely large space? For how could it expand if there were nothing to expand into? And isn't even nothing something? – Leon Lederman , who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1988, writes: "We can try to imagine the pre-Big Bang universe: timeless, featureless, but in some unimaginable way beholden to the laws of physics."³
And it would not immediately seem that it could be said that "nothing" existed before and exists beyond the universe (no one has seen "beyond" the universe) as we are aware of both the graviton (via gravity) and the quark (via atoms) – but have seen neither. Perhaps things as small and (more) functional than those two, and of which we are not aware, also exists and always did. Or, perhaps not. In any event, "nothing" appears to be an undefinable pre-existent "something" that future science may articulate.
Radar by accident detected background radiation from 10^-43 seconds onwards. Similarly, spectroscopic measurements of light emissions from stars billions of light years away detect elements identical to those produced each second today in our own sun. Wouldn't these two occurences indicate that the mechanism by which radiation and elements form was established at the outset of the big bang and thereby point to a pre-existent uniform design? No?
Accidental or purposeful design: With the big bang at 10^-43 seconds, by 10^-42 mathematically the universe could already be described as forever fixed regional onion-rings, home of the later galaxies: each of those rings, say 10^{-1, 000 000} meters in width, and each would expand like an accordian. If the universe were a random and accidental occurance, regions displaced from the "mathematical center" of our spherically exploding universe by less than one alphameter (10^-100 m) or alphasecond (10^-100 sec.) would evolve differently if element design were not under the command of natural law from 10^-43 onwards. But, element design is considered to be identical throughout the universe.
If the universe (i.e. space) is (say) one thousand light-years in diameter and retracts to one light year (big crunch), what exists in the former 999 light years that was "space"? Does that no longer exist? Was it not there to witness the birth of our universe and itself be more infinite and eternal? The early 20th century idea that we may live in a cyclic universe characterized by booms and busts would seem to indicate that indeed there is a form of space and time differing from the human experience of such. Though our universe is said to have begun no where (for there was no "where" for space to begin) is it wrong to say that it began at some x, y, z co-ordinate in that "thing" into which it expanded and is expanding?
Since the universe expands uniformly at the boundaries, it is wrong to assume that the "thing" that it expands into itself has uniform law? For how else could the universe expand homogeneously as it does? Is it wrong to suggest that that "thing" interacted with our universe as our universe lay dormant and before our universe' materialization at the big bang? If time is radial and the universe born of explosion with fastest galaxies farthest (as is true), would the universe not be a sphere with a mathematical center? Will the expanding universe hit a wall one day and bounce back?
While photons and neutrinos are their own antiparticles, other particles and antiparticles are equal opposites. If particles and antiparticles can be compared to two parallel strings of matched pearls (surfaces touching), would it not seem that to reach that perfection would require fine-tuning? For how else could such perfection materialize? By chance? How, please? What has man made that surpasses that perfection – and if not made, when will our geniuses have the capability of duplicating such a feat as high-energy particle anti-particle pairs capable themselves of generating quarks and leptons, nucleons, atoms, and life?
If fine-tuning were required to create these perfectly matched, innumerable pairs of pearls, would that imply that there were many false-starts to our universe and that each time that ferocious, explosive energy had to be "forced back" into its pre-atom or pre-Planck size? Was force required upon the surface of our pre-explosion and pre-Planck universe to contain it? No? Would the ability to design such particle-perfection point to the need to have a great scientific understanding of the relationship between matter and forces – and how they could combine to make strawberry ice-cream and pretty girls – prior to their perfection and prior to the launching of our universe? No? And, such paired-perfection unvaried and unflawed for its some 20 billion years of age is possible by chance? How, please? When it is said that "nothing" existed before the universe, what scientific proof is there, what is the likelihood ... and, what is "nothing"?

Bibliography supplied on request

[ Home ]