if the universe and space was created at the moment of the big bang where did the big bang happen At the instan before the event there was nowhere a?

[Catastrophe]

Steady State Theory

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Patrick fenex]

When cosmologists say that the big bang happened everywhere, they're attempting to describe the instant of creation. Where the diameter of the Universe was a singularity, that was the smallest planck scale object that could still exist. Everything that existed outside the singularity, did not exist. It was an imaginary reality. Analogues , to the set of imaginary numbers in mathematics. It would be like asking what is south, of the south pole? A few trillionths of a second after the instant of creation, the inflationary epoch expanded the volume of the universe at a speed much greater than that of light. No laws were broken. Since, it was the fabric of space and time that expanded. Not the elements within. If anyone proclaims that there was nothing before the big bang, is in error. By espousing that there was nothing, they could be assuming that they had privileged information prior to the big bang. The correct response should be that we don't know.

 

[Catastrophe]

What is space-time? The true origins of the fabric of reality ...
https://www.newscientist.com › article › mg24332470-...

11 Sept 2019 — A bold new perspective suggests space-time isn't a fundamental entity but emerges from quantum entanglement, says physicist Sean Carroll.

Cat )

I was looking into the fabric of space(-time).

 

[agent00seven]

Stephen Hawking describes what was before the Big Bang as, "The Big Bounce" where the entire universe never ends, but compresses and decompresses itself. A theory I believe in.

I see the Big Bang as a 'quantum leap event' within a much more complex, multi-dimensional reality. The energy within the universe may have access to all of the energy within reality. In other words reality may be an open system in which many complex conversions and resulting temporary isolations with fewer dimensions take place. The universe may be preparing for another quantum leap when the fabric of space-time has been stretched to the max.

 

[agent00seven]

Cat, with all due respect, you know, you are kind of disagreeing with yourself. A universe that is cyclic and something that has been cyclic forever must be infinite. I mean, at least, logic says so.

People often confuse 'infinite' with 'eternal.' Something can also be both eternal and finite. That may be the case with reality without it violating the conservation of energy law. The idea of an infinite universe or an infinite greater reality beyond the universe doesn't sit well with me. We realize something had to have always existed in order for anything to exist. That makes reality eternal, but not necessarily infinite. There may be a limit to the amount of energy within reality. Otherwise the word 'within' doesn't apply. There can be no 'within' applied to an infinite reality because there can be no border. It would just go on and on forever. That's just too much for me to wrap my head around. I feel more comfortable with a reality that has a limited amount of energy interacting with itself in a complex, cyclical manner than I do with a reality in which energy is so vast and limitless, it forever has the opportunity to interact with energy it has never interacted with before. That presents a far more complex picture of reality - an infinitely more complex one.

 

[agent00seven]

When cosmologists say that the big bang happened everywhere, they're attempting to describe the instant of creation. Where the diameter of the Universe was a singularity, that was the smallest planck scale object that could still exist. Everything that existed outside the singularity, did not exist. It was an imaginary reality. Analogues , to the set of imaginary numbers in mathematics. It would be like asking what is south, of the south pole? A few trillionths of a second after the instant of creation, the inflationary epoch expanded the volume of the universe at a speed much greater than that of light. No laws were broken. Since, it was the fabric of space and time that expanded. Not the elements within. If anyone proclaims that there was nothing before the big bang, is in error. By espousing that there was nothing, they could be assuming that they had privileged information prior to the big bang. The correct response should be that we don't know.

I see 'everywhere' as a place in which energy exists. In my view, there is no place in which energy doesn't exist - no voids. I see voids as figments of the imagination. What I see is the need for energy to remain energetic (or in motion) in order to maintain its existence. That energetic movement creates space-time. In other words, where there is no energy, there is no space or time. Nothing can exist without energy. That would mean there is no 'outside' the confines of energy. Everything in existence is energy. That completes the circle around my wagons.

 

[Catastrophe]

I see the Big Bang as a 'quantum leap event' within a much more complex, multi-dimensional reality. The energy within the universe may have access to all of the energy within reality. In other words reality may be an open system in which many complex conversions and resulting temporary isolations with fewer dimensions take place. The universe may be preparing for another quantum leap when the fabric of space-time has been stretched to the max.

Would you consider what you are describing as a cyclic model?

Cat

 

[agent00seven]

Would you consider what you are describing as a cyclic model?

Cat

Yes, but not a simple expansion/contraction of the space-time fabric in my view. I see it as a more complex cycle involving more quantum leaps, more dimensions, and perhaps more universes. This universe may be only a fraction of a more complex reality. Despite what may be unimaginable complexity, I see reality as a closed, energetic system interacting with itself, even if it involves other universes with similar or very different properties.

 

[Catastrophe]

You may know of my stand on Universe versus universes? If one assumes the one definition of Universe, being all there is, how would you define your use of universes?
This is not meant to have any negative implications, but is asked in the spirit of seeking better understanding

 

[agent00seven]

You may know of my stand on Universe versus universes? If one assumes the one definition of Universe, being all there is, how would you define your use of universes?
This is not meant to have any negative implications, but is asked in the spirit of seeking better understanding

I prefer to use the word 'reality' to describe everything in existence because other astrophysicists speculate about alternate universes and brane theories, string theory, M-theory, etc. Somebody's wrong - well, more than just one is.

 

[Catastrophe]

I prefer to use the word 'reality' to describe everything in existence because other astrophysicists speculate about alternate universes and brane theories, string theory, M-theory, etc. Somebody's wrong - well, more than just one is.

That's interesting, but isn't 'reality' the counterpart to 'observable universe'?

Cat

 

[agent00seven]

That's interesting, but isn't 'reality' the counterpart to 'observable universe'?

Cat

The universe may not be everything in existence. Some astrophysicists believe there are as many as 10, 11, or 26 dimensions, depending on the theory. Brane Theory suggests there are multiple universes. The touching of any two causes an event such as the Big Bang.

Although I think that is a bit far-fetched, I see no reason why there can't be other universes with their own space-time fabrics. They may be similar to ours or be very different. Some may be pre-Big Bang like ours was or a quantum leap or more beyond ours with different properties. A quantum leap rather than a simple contraction may occur when our space-time fabric is stretched to its limit, if there is a limit.

Of course, I'm not sold on my idea. I see it as a possibility because of the vast differences between the pre-Big Bang and the current universe. Perhaps the energy of the universe will experience many stages of existence.

 

[Patrick fenex]

I see 'everywhere' as a place in which energy exists. In my view, there is no place in which energy doesn't exist - no voids. I see voids as figments of the imagination. What I see is the need for energy to remain energetic (or in motion) in order to maintain its existence. That energetic movement creates space-time. In other words, where there is no energy, there is no space or time. Nothing can exist without energy. That would mean there is no 'outside' the confines of energy. Everything in existence is energy. That completes the circle around my wagons.

Its such an esoteric concept. You may have the right response, but you could easily be misinterpreted due to your misuse of the vernacular

 

[Catastrophe]

I am sure that you can see why everyone gets into such a mess. (I don't mean you specifically. I mean all of us, including me.) There is a word in the English language - Universe - which means all that is.

This is a space forum, so I quote the Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy:
"Universe. Everything that exists, including space, time, and matter. Cosmologists distinguish between the Universe with a capital 'U', meaning the cosmos with all its contents, and universe with a small 'u', which is usually a mathematical model derived from some physical theory. The real Universe consists mostly of apparently empty space, with matter concentrated into galaxies, consisting of stars and gas. The Universe is expanding, so the space between galaxies is gradually stretching, causing a cosmological redshift in the light from distant objects. There is now strong evidence that space is filled with unseen dark matter that may have many times the total mass of the visible galaxies, and even more mass may be accounted for by a still mysterious dark energy. The most favoured concept of the origin of the Universe is the Big Bang Theory, according to which the Universe came into being in a hot, dense fireball 13.7 billion years ago.

Now, I believe that we, as a forum, have a choice. We can either try to use words in an agreed fashion, aiding understanding, or we can sink into a Babel of misunderstanding and argument, rather than productive discussion. The choice is ours, but I believe that the latter can only result in long term frustration and disillusion, and, sadly, failure of this forum to reach its potential.

What can we do? If we believe that we are using the same word to represent more than one idea or concept, we must assert "What do you mean by that, because I mean this". Sadly there may be some who might use this situation to promulgate their own petty ideas, without wishing to share and benefit from cooperation with others. Hopefully that will not happen.

We are at a fork in the road. This forum recognises English as our common language here. I commend those for whom English is not their first language. Some, I believe speak English better than 'English' speakers. Perhaps that is because they are more careful with their words than others of us. Any way, I say 'well done'. To those of us who are 'English speakers', we have to watch, especially in a scientific forum, that we use words according to their scientific meaning. We all know that we can use words of 'mixed meaning' - those with a strict scientific meaning, but which also have common usage, which may convey a totally different intent.

That's all for now.

Cat

 

[agent00seven]

Its such an esoteric concept. You may have the right response, but you could easily be misinterpreted due to your misuse of the vernacular

I probably don't use many terms used in astrophysics and particles physics to describe an event, but I manage to get my point across without causing too much confusion.

I'd like to know where I misused the vernacular.

 

[Patrick fenex]

I am sure that you can see why everyone gets into such a mess. (I don't mean you specifically. I mean all of us, including me. There is a word in the English language - Universe - which all that is.

This is a space forum, so I quote the Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy:
"Universe. Everything that exists, including space, time, and matter. Cosmologists distinguish between the Universe with a capital 'U', meaning the cosmos with all its contents, and universe with a small 'u', which is usually a mathematical model derived from some physical theory. The real Universe consists mostly of apparently empty space, with matter concentrated into galaxies, consisting of stars and gas. The Universe is expanding, so the space between galaxies is gradually stretching, causing a cosmological redshift in the light from distant objects. There is now strong evidence that space is filled with unseen dark matter that may have many times the total mass of the visible galaxies, and even more mass may be accounted for by a still mysterious dark energy. The most favoured concept of the origin of the Universe is the Big Bang Theory, according to which the Universe came into being in a hot, dense fireball 13.7 billion years ago.

MORE

Perfectly understandable. By using terms like "imaginary reality", may have made my point easily "lost in translation". I should have expressed myself differently. "If the universe is expanding against something, it's beyond our ability to describe it. With no empirical evidence to even attempt an explanation, it would be an exercise in futility. "

I probably don't use many terms used in astrophysics and particles physics to describe an event, but I manage to get my point across without causing too much confusion.

I'd like to know where I misused the vernacular.

Not you, I was using myself as an example. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Catastrophe]

I probably don't use many terms used in astrophysics and particles physics to describe an event, but I manage to get my point across without causing too much confusion.

I'd like to know where I misused the vernacular.

I was not directing that against you, or anybody in particular. I am sorry if you thought that. I am only trying to ask everyone to agree on the meanings of words - especially Universe and universe.

Cat

 

[Patrick fenex]

I was not directing that against you, or anybody in particular. I am sorry if you thought that. I am only trying to ask everyone to agree on the meanings of words - especially Universe and universe.

Cat

Thanks. Having ADHD does have a positive aspect to it. Because of my bankrupt scholastic track record, I don't have any narcissitic, arrogant, or having a 'hubris' issue. If someone points out a flaw, I'll just tell them that I have more faults than California. Goodnight fellas.

 

[Catastrophe]

Perfectly understandable. By using terms like "imaginary reality", may have made my point easily "lost in translation". I should have expressed myself differently. "If the universe is expanding against something, it's beyond our ability to describe it. With no empirical evidence to even attempt an explanation, it would be an exercise in futility. "

Not you, I was using myself as an example. Sorry for the confusion.

"If the universe is expanding against something, it's beyond our ability to describe it. With no empirical evidence to even attempt an explanation, it would be an exercise in futility. " My emphasis.

Absolutely spot on! Cat

 

[SOURAV]

Ok..! There is nothing like 'Before the Big Bang' ! Universe expand (Birth) from a singularity (which is noted here as 0 or void) and contract (Die) a number of times. Thats why, there is another theory called 'Steady State Theory' or 'Theory of Continuous Creation'.

I think this one (the theory) fits the best..!!

 

[Catastrophe]

Continuous Creation has most definitely been disproved.

"While the steady-state model enjoyed some minority support in the scientific mainstream until the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady-state model does not predict.[1][2]"

Steady-state model - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Steady-state_model
In the steady-state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect ...
‎History · ‎Observational tests · ‎Counts of radio sources · ‎Cosmic microwave...


Cat

 

[agent00seven]

Thanks. Having ADHD does have a positive aspect to it. Because of my bankrupt scholastic track record, I don't have any narcissitic, arrogant, or having a 'hubris' issue. If someone points out a flaw, I'll just tell them that I have more faults than California. Goodnight fellas.

Oh, come on. Not even a catatonic has more faults than California. I mean that geographically and politically. Since this is a space forum, talking about loons who have a lot of space between their ears isn't off-topic.

 

[COLGeek]

Humor and humility are good. Politics, not so much. Just a reminder to stick to the science of these matters.

Thank you.

 

[agent00seven]

Perfectly understandable. By using terms like "imaginary reality", may have made my point easily "lost in translation". I should have expressed myself differently. "If the universe is expanding against something, it's beyond our ability to describe it. With no empirical evidence to even attempt an explanation, it would be an exercise in futility. "

Not you, I was using myself as an example. Sorry for the confusion.

Einstein would stick his tongue out at anyone who described space as 'empty' because it is an energetic fabric. My question is whether or not its expansion is limited. If so, does it begin contracting or quantum leap into something with different laws of physics.

The Ekpyrotic Model of the Universe (as described by John Steinhardt of Princeton) proposes that our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension. That would account for the initial 'faster than light speed' beginning of the universe. Still, it leaves open a lot of questions and the possibility that there are either a limited or unlimited number of universes separated by this other-dimensional wall. What happens when all of these universes have 'banged' into existence? Are they all caught up in an eternal 'bang, collapse, bang again' cycle or do they quantum leap into something else? Our universe may be in the second phase of one or more phases to come, for all we know.

If the Big Bang expanded faster than the speed of light before the laws of physics as we know them developed, it had to have expanded into something that wasn't under the influence of those laws. Does that mean whatever was supposedly expanding faster than light speed remained a component of the developing space-time fabric, causing it to obey the known laws of physics once they came into existence, or did whatever was expanding faster than light speed manage to escape our space-time fabric into the unknown region beyond its reach?

 

[agent00seven]

Humor and humility are good. Politics, not so much. Just a reminder to stick to the science of these matters.

Thank you.

I wouldn't want to see this forum dig too deeply into politics or religion, even though one or the other may lead to our extinction.