Is this the first Big Bang?

[amshak]

The origine of Universe is Big Bang. But we cannot see the Past . The Universe is expanding now . Some say there is going to be 2nd Big Bang . If thats true , the Big Bang Ocured 15 billion years ago may not be 2nd Big Bang . Sorry if the statement is Wrong . There are many Explanations for the Bigining of Universe if you search the web site . But which is true? Before the Big Bang was there an empty Space?

 

[BurgerB75]

From my understanding the Big Bang Theory does not account for what came before that event.

Before the Big Bang was there an empty Space?

"Space" was created by the Big Bang and was created out of nothing. I believe A_L_P or Ramparts has a good link explaining the BBT.

 

[neilsox]

There is a mainstream opinion among experts, which is, I think, only one big bang, past and future. We may never know as before the big bang of 13.7 billion years ago is unknowable, by any means of which we are aware. There are some, perhaps many experts who disagree, but their hypothesis vary widely and thus get little attention. My hypothesis is artifacts of previous big bangs, but no such artifacts have been found, and I don't know how we could determine that they were not from the big bang of 13.7 billion years ago, so my hypothesis is likely as worthless as those of Richard C. Hoagland. Neil

 

[mark99m]

of course there have been other big bangs, almost infinite big bangs. The idea that time starts with our big bang and ends with our universe is as arrogant as thinking that earth is the center of the universe or the only place there is life. Travel to edge of the universe or beyond the edge of the universe (into an unknown set of physical laws) and other universes which resulted from other big bangs couild be visible. The ultimate look back in time. the idea that another universe is some parallel thing we can step into is fun to think about but should dismissed. I think the idea that a black hole has collapsed matter into a lower demmention is valid but i dont believe that a singularity would just be common to other singularities but to all space.

Lastly, Just because the universe is accelerating does not mean that it will expand for ever, the "jerk" if i remember the term correctly would be important to know. The change in the rate of the acceleration with time. The rate of acceleration may be decreasing or we need to go another level deeper to see where it ends. The very existence of the universe suggests that there is more to the story.

- mark

 

[MeteorWayne]

The rate of acceleration is actually increasing....

 

[amshak]

So we can say that this Universe has started 13.7billion years ago with a Big Bang . And there may be many Big Bangs in the infinite past . But when actually the time started ? I dont think we can guess . Is any research still going on relating to The Big Bang ?

 

[mark99m]

The rate of acceleration is actually increasing....

I don't believe I have heard that we have been able to measured the current change in acceleration with time (da/dt). I know that one theory is that a cosmic "jerk" event occurred. Is what you are referring to part of this theory, does the model show a continuing jerk? or have we actually been able to measure da/dt?

- Mark

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yes, current measurements are ongoing, this is why the term "dark energy" was created. If you do a search on that term, you can get some background.

MW

 

[Silberberg]

"God is Outside the Box"....This is the title of a paper I wrote years ago. An attempt to explain what was there before the Big Bang (a question we probably may never know the answer too) I mean how do you get something from nothing? You don't. Plain and simple..
Before the Big Bang there was absolute nothingness - which is not empty space - it is the nonexistence of Space / Time --- of Everything. Now, how can the Big Bang...'Bang' so to speak? How do you get a reaction like that out of absolute nothingness? Again..You don't. Or better yet, there is currently no known explanation....
Therefore GOD.
In my opinion this Supreme Being (be he Man / Woman / Father of Jesus / Budah - there are a hundred different choices on this one planet alone - let alone throughout all intelligence in the universe) can be the only explanation for the Big Bang and the only real proof that a Supreme Being exists at all.

 

[mark99m]

OK, but for an ongoing jerk, wouldn't this require something like one from matter slowly undergoing converion to another. Using dark matter to explain the acceleration, a increasing velocity, ok, but to imply a continuing jerk i don't think this works. I believe the universe experienced more of a tipping point than that it is being feed an ever increasing force that would be required for an increasing acceleration. My understanding is that dark matter is one part of a more complex equation that is currently being used to explain the accelration dv/dt and that there is an ongoing effort to measure j (da/dt) and to refine these equations and models. I have to add though this is not my field of study and I may be behind the curve here, I try to stay current in as many fields as i can as any practicing scientist would.

- Mark

 

[MeteorWayne]

OK, but for an ongoing jerk, wouldn't this require something like one from matter slowly undergoing converion to another. Using dark matter to explain the acceleration, a increasing velocity, ok, but to imply a continuing jerk i don't think this works. I believe the universe experienced more of a tipping point than that it is being feed an ever increasing force that would be required for an increasing acceleration. My understanding is that dark matter is one part of a more complex equation that is currently being used to explain the accelration dv/dt and that there is an ongoing effort to measure j (da/dt) and to refine these equations and models. I have to add though this is not my field of study and I may be behind the curve here, I try to stay current in as many fields as i can as any practicing scientist would.

- Mark

There is no answer yet mark. All we know is the RATE of expansion is increasing, which should not be happening if
the only force acting on the galaxies (and galactic clusters) is gravity. So it seems that the rate of the expansion of space is increasing. Why? We know not yet

Please don't confuse dark matter and dark energy. They are two completely different things....and the names are just placeholders until we find the cause. Dark matter is gravity without visible matter. Dark energy is the increasing rate of expansion of space.

 

[bdewoody]

Isn't it possible that even though from our point of view the universes expansion rate is increasing that overall it may not be. Things regarding the universe are rarely as we initially observe them. Making measurements over a few years about something that has been going on for 13.7 billion years and trying to deduce future trends seems ludicrous

 

[ramparts]

It's not all that ludicrous - we can see almost any previous time period in any direction, so we can get a pretty good sense of the history of the Universe. Making predictions for the future is about as ludicrous as when a TV weatherman forecasts a storm the next day; it's not certain knowledge but we can make educated guesses.

As for the expansion being an illusion from our point of view - possible, and it's been/being considered, but a lot of pretty overwhelming evidence points to the Copernican principle, that we're not in a special or unique vantage point in the Universe, being true, and what you're suggesting would be a very strong violation of the Copernican principle. If the Universe appeared to be expanding from our viewpoint but actually weren't, we would have to be located in a place where the composition of the Universe is noticeably different from the norm, and all indications point to that just not being the case.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...As for the expansion being an illusion from our point of view - possible, and it's been/being considered, but a lot of pretty overwhelming evidence points to the Copernican principle, that we're not in a special or unique vantage point in the Universe, being true, and what you're suggesting would be a very strong violation of the Copernican principle. If the Universe appeared to be expanding from our viewpoint but actually weren't, we would have to be located in a place where the composition of the Universe is noticeably different from the norm, and all indications point to that just not being the case.

Or, something happens to light when traveling over large distances in space. Of course, it would end up being radically new knowledge that would end up having to explain it.

I'm not saying that the Universe isn't expanding, just offering something that doesn't violate mediocrity.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Is this the first Big Bang?

Who's to say, Grasshopper!

 

[bdewoody]

Even though it matters little regarding mankind's fate I tend to favor the multiple big bang theory. Would possibly explain deja vu.

 

[Silberberg]

Deja Vu is nothing more than a short circuiting of the Brain.

You have different parts of your brain for both long & short term memory. And what just happened to you 'a second ago' your brain will put into long term memory and you could swear you've been here before etc etc - when you know you've never been to France or whatever - for example.
It's simply your brain filing something in the wrong place.

The other possibility is you are remembering something that happened in a previous life??? That's if you believe in Reincarnation (which I'm not so sure about) - Trust me, go with the first one. That is the truth.

 

[bdewoody]

Me thinks you took me too seriously. The deja vu thing was a feeble attempt at humor. I'm sure that even if there have been thousands of big bang cycles no one ever lived this life before, at least I hope not.

 

[neilsox]

Most experts seem to have rejected the idea of successive big bangs , as the concept likely cannot be falsified. It does however suggest an interesting question: If the present radius of the Universe is 30 billion light years (including the portion we can never see unless a big crunch begins) is it expanding at the speed of light as local photons approach the outer boundary? Neil

 

[SpeedFreek]

Those photons are local to our boundary, where a coordinate comoving with the expansion of the universe has an apparent recession speed of c. From where those photons are, it is here that is apparently receding at c (and the same distance in all directions from there, as the distance to here).

 

[ZenGalacticore]

When it comes to multiple Big Bangs and Crunches, there are no "experts".

 

[qwain]

After reading most of the post on this subject, I am reminded of one of the laws of physics. To paraphrase Einstein; Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but its nature can be changed. Now, consider that statement. If energy exist always, then it predated the big bang and will postdate the universe. So, rather than coming out of nothingness, the big bang came out of a change in the energy environment that was the "universe" at that moment in time. Whether this energy was cognizant and created the universe out of a thought (universe creation out of the mind of God), or if energy in sufficient quantities can transmute from one energetic form to a combined form (matter/energy loop flow - going from one state to another in a closed universe environment), is anyone's guess, and will require technologies to answer that are well beyond our current state of expertise. However, it is conceivable that if one big bang event occurred, and others big bangs may have happened in the infinite energy eddies on which the bubbles of universes float.
In closing, one thought on if there are other "big bang events" out there that have formed universes (multi-universe theory) that are impinging on our own and would show themselves as symmetrical circles or ovals on the background radiation field: If nebula and galaxies can be formed into squares, lines, and other geometric designs due to the internal and external physical stressors at work when they were created, why wouldn't other "universes" on the big bang sea? The intrusion may be little more than a knife cut on the underbelly of the universe, with the consequences of such an impact unrealized for eons. More on that in another post, if anyone is interested.
Qwain.

 

[ramparts]

Just one important note: the word "multi-universe" doesn't really make sense, since the prefix "uni" means "one" while "multi" means "many." You're thinking of "multiverse."

 

[ramparts]

On an actual science note, though, you're assuming that the big bang was a moment in time rather than - as the current model holds (though we can't really test it, of course) the beginning of time. Speaking of "predating" the big bang would then simply be an incoherent concept. In fact, the "law" you're referring to, the law of conservation of matter/energy, is a law about conservation through time and so only works in a context in which there is a before and an after. This is not necessarily true of the big bang.

Also, no offense but this sentence doesn't really make sense:

"If nebula and galaxies can be formed into squares, lines, and other geometric designs due to the internal and external physical stressors at work when they were created, why wouldn't other "universes" on the big bang sea?"

Could you clarify what you mean? I've never seen a nebula or galaxy shaped quite like a square or a line (these are all three-dimensional objects, they can't actually be lines!), and I don't know what you mean by "internal and external physical stressors." And what's the "big bang sea?" It sounds like you have some misconception about galaxies somehow looking like squares and other universes looking like circles, but that doesn't even begin to sound like any science we know of.

 

[qwain]

Ramparts.
On reply #1, I do mean "multiverse," but I've caught heat for using that term on other sites, and especially from my wife, who considers all to be part of one universe. I was trying to infer the multiverse concept in a short amount of online time.
As for reply #2, I didn't have my nebula reference in front of me at that moment, but I was referring to the Red Square Nebula, star MWC 922. There are other examples, but what I was inferring is that if forces exist in our universe which can create nebula, and perhaps galaxies, of varying symmetries, then hypothetically forces could exist which would warp multiverses. If it is possible for another multiverse to intersect with another, in one multiverse model mentioned in National Geographic, the point of intersection in the background radiation could appear as a radiation circle or line depending on the shape of the intersecting multiverse. I am thinking of the bubble concept of multiverses that was touted in an issue of Smithsonian Magazine approximately five to seven years ago, but I lack the time at this moment to look it up.
As I noted on another scientific blogging website, my degrees are in health care science, biology, and electronics, but I have an avid interest in string theory and astronomy, so my analogies and interpretation of data will be different than your professional or amateur astronomer.
Thanks for your reply. I may revisit your posts later and expound on what I'm envisioning.
Qwain