Coconutwater, glad you found that interesting.
First, I would just like to point out a small but important, matter of terminology.
This arises from the actual t = 0 (which I take to mean the actual happening, which we don't understand, and what came next after only the minutest fraction of a second, which we call the Big Bang (BB) and associated Big Bang Theory (BBT). We do have some claim (however it may be exaggerated) to understanding BBT.
I like the idea (which I consider sound) that, once you start requiring "infinite" or "infinity", it is symptomatic of something
unreal about the theory. This is because it is brought about by division by zero. This is mathematically speaking, and not reality. It certainly is not scientific, and should be regarded as metaphysics.
Now let me get to the point that you raise:
If the first phase started with the big bang, what caused it and where did the material come from?
I would like to take this in two parts, akin to what I said above.
It will be distinguished between "t = 0", which might represent the so-called singularity (on which I am not very keen) and a possible nexus between "phases" of the universe.
Both scenarios have their pros and cons, and all this is very little understood.
After "t = 0" matters are a little clearer, but still not certain (IMHO). But you are rightly interested in the earlier development. To me, the idea of "all this" out of nothing does not stack up.
But we must accept that those things are so beyond our experience, that we should not be surprised if they are just beyond our comprehension, at least for the time being.
Considering the "something out of nothing" scenario, it is just not plausible. On the other hand, how are we, now, to understand how things were. Our "laws" apparently did not apply then, because we have to stomach "all this" out of absolutely nothing. Even if you postulate an initial vast energy which converted into mass, and expansion, you are left with the question of where this energy came from.
The cyclic alternative (or alternatives, as there are variations) substitutes a nexus for the singularity, which substitution immediately helps, since the nexus does not require the word "infinitely (small)" - see above. Again, to me, these requirements of "infinite" temperature, and "infinitely high density" just suggest something very wrong with the concept, which, after all, is only arrived at using maths. There is no real science here, of experiments, observation, et cetera.
The problem with cyclic systems is one of entropy. It seems to be assumed that entropy must only increase, as we observe it now. It seems to strike horror into some, to ask whether, if entropy only increases in an expanding universe, does it only decrease in a contracting phase. There is a lot of nonsense suggested, such as eggs un-breaking. No one suggests, I believe, that a contracting universe would require walking backwards to the womb.
However, there is one thing we must understand. We do not necessarily have the sensory equipment to comprehend higher dimensions, which may give totally different views.
From your #101, you have seen the reference to Moebius Strip and Klein Bottle. If the universe is like this, in a higher dimension, it aids understanding considerably. It takes the question of what came before the BB into a higher dimension, and understandable only to beings with the requisite appreciation of higher dimensions.
Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
forums.space.com
Anyway, that should be enough to get you started. Please come back if you have any questions.
Cat
![Smile :) :)]()