Did the Big Bang expand into Nothing?

kyle_baron · Mar 19, 2006

To quote Brian Greene (Elegant Universe p.83)....Carrying on to the begining, there is simply no space outside the primordial pinpoint grenade. Instead, the big bang is the eruption of compressed space, whose unfurling, like a tidal wave, carries along matter and energy even to this day. I'm sorry, I disagree with the words "no space" which means nothing. This Pre-BB space called nothing, IMHO is SPACE that has no energy fields in it. Unlike our Post-BB space which has energy fields, where virtual (real) particles pop into and out of existance. I had a problem with the cosmological expansion of space (balloon concept in GR), until I realized that there were these two kinds of space, one with energy fields and one without. Astronomers wouldn't see the difference between the two types of space, by looking at the Type I supernova, which is real observational evidence that the supernova's are 25% dimmer than they should be, which proves this spacial expansion. My conclusion, is that there are two kinds of space working together (or overlapping) causing the cosmological expansion of space. Feel free to agree or disagree, express your opinions, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

harmonicaman · Mar 20, 2006

I've read Greene several times and all I believe he is trying to say here is that the entire universe is space and time being created and expanding wholly within the confines of the singularity -- there is no valid concept to define existence outside of this infinitely small point of our origin! Since there is no "Outside" of the singularity for anything to exist, our universe is time expanding and the creation of space within the infinitely small singularity itself -- that is the only place space and time can go! This is why the relative perspective of every point in the universe is that they are the oldest and most central spot in the whole universe. In fact this is true! Every point must see itself as being located in the exact center because the rules of the singularity still prevail. Even though space and time are expanding, the universe still acts very much like a singularity -- and the edge of the singularity is right in front of your nose at "c" (it's right there but you can never reach it).

kyle_baron · Mar 21, 2006

I've read Greene several times and all I believe he is trying to say here is that the entire universe is space and time being created and expanding wholly within the confines of the singularity -- there is no valid concept to define existence outside of this infinitely small point of our origin! Sure there is a valid concept to counter the infinitly small point, they're called Branes. The underlying concept in String Theory are these multi-dimensional space membranes. Since there is no "Outside" of the singularity for anything to exist, our universe is time expanding and the creation of space within the infinitely small singularity itself -- that is the only place space and time can go! I'll agree to that statement now, but it's been theorized that these multi-dimensional space branes can operate at different times. Even though space and time are expanding, the universe still acts very much like a singularity -- and the edge of the singularity is right in front of your nose at "c" (it's right there but you can never reach it). You're talking about moving through all 4 dimensions (3 space+1 time) all at the same time, at the speed of light, I assume? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

newtonian · Mar 21, 2006

kyle_baron - Not necessarily into nothing. That would assume there is no other universe - which is unlikely. It is more likely that there are many universes. 1 Kings 8:27 hints at this - referring to plural heavens and a heaven of the heavens. In other words, our universe may be one of many within a much larger universe. In that model, our universe is expanding within another larger universe. This cannot be proven yet. However, we should remember the lesson of the geocentric model which was wrong because of attaching too much importance to 'our' planet. We may also be attaching too much importance to 'our' universe. BTW - Are you familiar with the collision of branes model for the origin of our universe?

newtonian · Mar 21, 2006

harmonicaman - Your post does not make sense using the definition of 'singularity' I am use to. What definition of 'singularity' are you using???

kyle_baron · Mar 21, 2006

This cannot be proven yet. However, we should remember the lesson of the geocentric model which was wrong because of attaching too much importance to 'our' planet. We may also be attaching too much importance to 'our' universe. Well stated, I agree. BTW - Are you familiar with the collision of branes model for the origin of our universe? I have an article on it from Sky & Telescope Magazine June 2003. I'll paraphrase excerpts from the article: Originally developed in 2000-01. A Cyclic Universe Model involving M Theory that envisions an eternal cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches resulting from the interaction of two branes. About 14 billion years ago our brane collided with a parallel brane in bulk space, what we call the Big Bang. Each brane streching after the collision, which to us looks like cosmic expansion. As the branes stretch, they move apart and remain seperated by about 10 -30cm in bulk space. Expansion for trillions of years then contraction when the two branes bounce apart or pass through each other, the new mattter and radiation cause the branes to begin streching anew. The cyclic model is consistant with all astronomical, cosmological, and particle physics observations, and is as fully developed as the standard model, even though it is very recent. It avoids the singularity problem of standard Big Bang cosmology which has yet to explain how a universe can emerge from an infinite temperature and density. The cyclic model predicts a radial polarization pattern in the Cosmic Microwave Background, which was actually detected. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

newtonian · Mar 21, 2006

kyle_baron - Interesting model. I am sure I read a different collision of branes model, btw. I'll have to research that after I post a few more questions I thought of last night.

kyle_baron · Mar 27, 2006

See this link for additional information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Universe <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

harmonicaman · Mar 28, 2006

harmonicaman - "Your post does not make sense using the definition of 'singularity' I am use to." The Big Bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite. This singularity contained all of the matter and energy in the Universe. The initial moment of the cyclopean explosion very well remains a mystery — however, astronomers and physicists believe that after the tiniest fraction of a second, the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force separated, which probably caused the Universe to begin inflating. The Big Bang itself created space, time, and all of the matter and energy we know today. Black hole singularities OTOH are created after the core of a very massive star collapses beyond an imaginary sphere called the event horizon. These singularities are infinitesimally small and possess infinite density; but they do not contain the whole universe!. There was only one Big Bang singularity, and it contained the whole Universe. Black hole singularities occur within the universe and actually stretch out space to the point where the fabric of space and time stops altogether. According to Stephen W. Hawking, singularities either occur entirely in the future or entirely in the past. In this case, black hole singularities always lie in the future (if you were to go near one, your time will come to an end), and the Big Bang singularity always lie in the past (if you were able to rewind time, galaxies will become closer together, eventually coming together at a point). (Paraphrased from an essay by Joel Novicio, Undergraduate Physics Student, South San Francisco) ------------------------------------- A black hole singularity is the dimensionless point where all matter pulled into the back hole is concentrated. It has infinite density and therefore does not exist within space-time as it is the point of infinite curvature of space-time.

qso1 · Mar 30, 2006

If our Universe is in a much larger one, that would seem to imply that one or the other by definition is or is not a Universe. The definition of Universe I once recall was basically encompassing of everything. Once Cosmology began to encompass the idea of multiple Universes, the term itself fell apart. I started reading about multiverses and omniverses. This stuff is largely theoretical and todays theories are replaced with tomorrows in something as unprovable as this. And by unprovable, I'm talking the fact we will never see the origins of the Universe in a meaningful factual way as we see planets for example, and we really haven't even seen actual planet formation but dust discs around such stars as Beta Pictoris are pretty close. The inevitable question comes up, the same one that comes up in religion. What came before the BB? What was happening 250 trillion years ago for example? I tend to think the Universe, multiverse, exists within the void of space. Space extends into infinity in all directions and other Universes or whatever one wants to call them now, occupy points in the void. An example being our own possibly coming into existence the way the cosmologists believe it did. Other Universes doing the same throughout. Universes we cannot see because they are so red shifted as to be impossible for us to see. A Universe 200 trillion...or 890 quadrillion Ly out would be red shifted beyond our technological capabilities. These Universes like our own, comprised of collections of galaxies banging into existence from singularities and eventually expanding into nothingness with lots of void separating them from us. Of course, this is only speculation on my part. I'm not a Cosmologist but I slept in a...LOL. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

kyle_baron · Apr 2, 2006

The Big Bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite. That statement does not make any sence, unless the "very high mass" was outside our universe (maybe a 5th Dimension as opposed to our 3+1 Dimensions). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

xmo1 · Apr 18, 2006

My idea is that the universe is infinity (all space), existence, the imaginary, and eternity (all time). Three key ideas are: 1. Earthlings can only view the universe to the limits of their devices. 2. The universe has no boundaries. 3. All four things are necessary to the universe. The answer to your question, from my point of view, would be that existence is necessary to the universe. Without existence there is nothing, which I guess you could view as the opposite of the universe. The inverse, I guess, would be that if there was space then there would also be the universe. Let me say that I threw in the imaginary because such things do not map to the other three objects in the equation. Could be that it is not necessary. No one has discussed the subject with me, so I'm leaving it in. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

xmo1 · Apr 19, 2006

You could be right of course. I believe there is a duality. On one hand there is a universe, and on the other hand there is nothing. I am surprised when people, who have seen Hubble deep space photographs, conclude that there is a finite boundry. My guess is that if a Hubble DST were placed into that section of deep space you could still look into the next section of deep space in the same direction. I could be wrong. Maybe God created the universe 13.7 billion years ago. That would be my next guess. The Cyclic Universe idea looks good enough for me to read more. Sounds exotic and scientific like the next hot idea. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

xmo1 · Apr 19, 2006

Thank you for the link Kyle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

kyle_baron · Apr 19, 2006

The Cyclic Universe idea looks good enough for me to read more. Sounds exotic and scientific like the next hot idea. The neat thing about the Cyclic Universe Theory is that it's a version of BB Theory, only in a different form. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

newtonian · Apr 21, 2006

qso1 - Yes, I am questioning the validity, semanticaly, of the word "universe" with its singular prefix - unless, of course, you are simply referring to our singular universe among many other universes, or multiverses. Note, as you have, not only that many scientists hypothesize, for good scientific reasons, about multiverses but also that the Bible does not contain the word universe with its singular prefix and often uses the roughly equivalent word "heaven" in the plural! Remember, universes existed before human dictionary definitions! The void of space is referred to in the Bible, as in Job 26:7 which states the earth is hung upon nothing. Other verses qualify this, showing that constellations and hence stars and galaxies can either be bound or loosened: (Job 38:31-33) . . .Can you tie fast the bonds of the Ki´mah constellation, Or can you loosen the very cords of the Ke´sil constellation? 32 Can you bring forth the Maz´za·roth constellation in its appointed time? And as for the Ash constellation alongside its sons, can you conduct them? 33 Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens, Or could you put its authority in the earth? We now know that gravity is involved in the "nothing" of Job 26:7, hence earth is firmly placed despite being hung on nothing - earth is gravitationally bound. However, other objects in our universe can be gravitationally loosened as Job 38:31 indicates. Current scientific theory posits the existence of another form of energy (dark energy aka vacuum energy aka cosmological constant) which can loosen what was gravigtationally bound. The fact is, as simply stated in Job 38:33, that empty space and the universe (our heaven(s)) are governed by laws - the "statutes of the heavens." Many of these statutes have authority on earth, allowing easier scientific study and discovery. However, law or statutes do not spontaneously generate - laws require a l

newtonian · Apr 21, 2006

xmo1 - Yes, I agree God created our universe (Genesis 1:1) though I am not sure we have the exact date of the beginning pinned down - perhaps 12-14 billion years ago as popularly believed according to popular models (notably cause of red shifting - it may be more complex than we assume and c ( light speed) may not be absolutely constant through long periods of past time in our universe (as some scientists question, btw.) As to an edge for our universe, note this Biblical hint (their are others, btw): (Jude 13) . . .stars with no set course, for which the blackness of darkness stands reserved forever. One possible interpretation, and scientific hypothesis, would be that some dark stars, aka black holes, have achieved escape velocity from the light and gravity of our universe. Hence, these stars would be not only beyond all light cones of our universe, i.e. beyond the visibility horizon of our universe, but also beyond the extent of the gravity of our universe. Therefore these stars would be in darkness eternally and also have no gravitationally set course. Would these stars therefore be beyond the edge of our universe? That would depend on how you define edge. Certainly one would have reason to conclude these stars are indeed beyond the edge of our universe. Note, also, that apparently these stars will never experience the light of any other universe. Assuming there are other universes and other sources of light, as the Bible indicates, one would naturally conclude that their direction will also never be gravitationally bound by any other universe nor will they ever enter the light cone of any other universe. However, I expect our universe will interact with other universes. This all has to do with "direction" of expansion - and one must remember this may not simply involve our universe's 3-d dimensions but also the dimensions in other universes.

reaver273 · May 4, 2006

If you do a little research and crunch a few numbers it turns out that the critical density of the universe is actually equal to the average density of a black hole of the estimated size of the universe. That is a little unexpected because it basically says that we could be living in a gigantic, universal black hole. This is probably very unlikely because as you fall into a black hole it is impossible to get out. As you pass into the event horizon of the hole you would realize that it would be impossible to go back to the surface as the escape velocity in this region of space exceed the speed of light. each point closer to the singularity has an ever increasing escape velocity and thus you would realise that once inside a black hole you could not stop yourself from falling inwards nor could you summon the energy to climb out of the gravitational well of the hole. I once read this phenomena as its as if you are passing through a series of one-way membranes that lead only to the centre of the hole. Simmilarly if the universe were a giant black hole we would find that we would constantly be moving towards the centre of the universe and that we would not be able to communicate with people "behind" us. If this were the case we would find that there was a direction in which we could not travel. Perhaps this could be a candidate for one of the hidden dimensions that "superstring" theorists are so tenaciously searching for. Or perhaps not.

reaver273 · May 4, 2006

If you do a little research and crunch a few numbers it turns out that the critical density of the universe is actually equal to the average density of a black hole of the estimated size of the universe. That is a little unexpected because it basically says that we could be living in a gigantic, universal black hole. This is probably very unlikely because as you fall into a black hole it is impossible to get out. As you pass into the event horizon of the hole you would realize that it would be impossible to go back to the surface as the escape velocity in this region of space exceed the speed of light. each point closer to the singularity has an ever increasing escape velocity and thus you would realise that once inside a black hole you could not stop yourself from falling inwards nor could you summon the energy to climb out of the gravitational well of the hole. I once read this phenomena as its as if you are passing through a series of one-way membranes that lead only to the centre of the hole. Simmilarly if the universe were a giant black hole we would find that we would constantly be moving towards the centre of the universe and that we would not be able to communicate with people "behind" us. If this were the case we would find that there was a direction in which we could not travel. Perhaps this could be a candidate for one of the hidden dimensions that "superstring" theorists are so tenaciously searching for. Or perhaps not.

reaver273 · May 4, 2006

If you do a little research and crunch a few numbers it turns out that the critical density of the universe is actually equal to the average density of a black hole of the estimated size of the universe. That is a little unexpected because it basically says that we could be living in a gigantic, universal black hole. This is probably very unlikely because as you fall into a black hole it is impossible to get out. As you pass into the event horizon of the hole you would realize that it would be impossible to go back to the surface as the escape velocity in this region of space exceed the speed of light. each point closer to the singularity has an ever increasing escape velocity and thus you would realise that once inside a black hole you could not stop yourself from falling inwards nor could you summon the energy to climb out of the gravitational well of the hole. I once read this phenomena as its as if you are passing through a series of one-way membranes that lead only to the centre of the hole. Simmilarly if the universe were a giant black hole we would find that we would constantly be moving towards the centre of the universe and that we would not be able to communicate with people "behind" us. If this were the case we would find that there was a direction in which we could not travel. Perhaps this could be a candidate for one of the hidden dimensions that superstring theorists are so tenaciously searching for. Or perhaps not.

reaver273 · May 4, 2006

Do not put too much faith in the bible. It would be foolish to say that the bible had any credibility as a scientific paper as it is not based on experimental or mathematical evidence. It is only the philosophy of a person some two thousand years ago that very unsatisfiyingly explans the existence of things.

Did the Big Bang expand into Nothing?

kyle_baron

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

newtonian

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

qso1

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

xmo1

Guest

xmo1

Guest

xmo1

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

reaver273

Guest

reaver273

Guest

reaver273

Guest

reaver273

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page