# Thread: My Big Bang Theory

1. Here is My Big Bang Idea. I'm looking for opinions. The questions I'm asking are does this seem correct, is this idea insightful in any way and are there any shortcomings? So, here it is.

In the beginning the universe was zero. Meaning it was everything and nothing. It was full of energy and void of energy at the same time. It was backwards in time and forwards in time. The net of all these exactly opposing components is zero. Sometimes zero means nothing and sometimes zero means every possible thing combined to have a net total of zero. The universe was zero for no amount of time since time didn't exist yet. Then there was a nudge. In a perfectly balanced zero there was a discrepancy. Energy appeared into zero.

Energy's counterpart is void. Energy is the contraction of zero and void is the expansion of zero.

Before the first energy zero did not have a definition for energy. When the first energy appeared it defined the basic unit of energy, the basic unit of void and the basic unit of time. This new energy caused current energies to occupy other energies' voids. Two energies can not occupy one void so one energy had to occupy another energy's void. Which caused that energy to occupy it's neighboring energy's void and the cycle continues. This created the coalescence of energy and movement away from the first energy. The coalescence of energy is matter.

Matter is two or more energies combined together and surrounded by void. In the beginning matter did no coalesce evenly because the first energy had to push a unit of energy in a specific direction. This coalescence continues until matter is separated enough by void until it can not come in contact with zero anymore. Now matter, which is already moving away from the seed, accelerates as it tries to fill this void to achieve balance.

When matter started moving time was created, meaning the future position of matter, the past position of matter and the current position of matter. Although time for all matter is relative to itself and not other matter because time is created by movement. If two pieces of matter are moving at the same velocity their time is the same, change any factors and their time is different.

Since matter is not evenly distributed in the universe gravity exists because matter has to compete for void with other matter. When matter is surrounded by equal void it does not divert from it's movement away from the first energy. If two pieces of matter are in close proximity to each other both matters want to have equal amounts of void around them. This causes them to combine in order to have the most equal distribution of void around them. This movement of two matters towards each other is gravity.

When two amounts of matter are in close proximity they have to share the same void. This means that on the shared side of the matter less energy is being balanced by void. In order for energy to be balanced by an equal amount of void it has to enter a shared void and cause two shared voids to equal a full void. Of course after they've done this they are again sharing the same void and the cycle continues until both amounts of matter can not move closer to each other. Two amounts of matter will not compete for void if there is enough void between the two to balance their energy.

Furthermore, as all of this matter accelerates away from the first energy, through the void, and comes in contact with zero it should accumulate more energy and create more void. That's how we can know if this is true or not.

Let me know what you think. Thanks in advance.

2.

3. I think it's pure meaningless word salad, but that's just me. Wait for other opinions, as I am not a god. Welcome to TSF

4. Deleted

5. Did you actually read it? I explained how energy is created, I explained how matter is created, I explained why time is a relative measurement, and I explained why gravity exists. Did you know that as of yet no one knows definitively why gravity exists?

6. I tried to read it. It made no sense to me whatsoever.

7. Basically what I'm getting at is that empty space (a vacuum) is the opposite of energy. Energy is attracted to empty space because it's trying to achieve a balance.
Let's say you have a simple arrangement of

V-E-E-V-E

There are two energies sharing one void. In order to have the most even distribution of void the energies will combine into this

V-E-E-E-V

This arrangement is still unstable because the center energy is sharing the outer energies' voids so the arrangement will be attracted to areas with excess void or other collections of energy that they are competing with for void.

Image this on a much larger scale and that is in my opinion why gravity exists. A smaller object is going to advance much more quickly to a larger object because the larger object has more claim on the void between the two.

The reason why energy collects and not void is because of energy's contractive nature and void's expansive nature.

The reason why they can never cancel each other out is because movement is a component of zero. Movement was created by the separation of void and energy. So in order to combine energy and void you have to cease their movement, which is easy to do in a relative sense but you have to remember that the earth is moving around the sun, the sun is rotating around the center of our galaxy and our galaxy is moving away from the first energy. So in order to make a unit of energy cancel out with a unit of void on earth you have to stop the entire galaxy and the sun and the earth.

8. Word salad with low-cal dressing.

9. What is it you didn't understand?

10. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
What is it you didn't understand?
It may make sense to you, but it won't make any sense to any scientists. It is, sadly, an example of the Ronco WordSaladShooter(tm) in action. There is nothing -- nothing -- in what you wrote that comprises a theory. It's a story with science terms used in unscientific ways. It makes no falsifiable predictions, and it provides no quantitative descriptions.

Here's an example of your writing making no sense: "In the beginning the universe was zero." To scientists, zero is a number. So, the universe was the number zero, according to what you've written. If that makes sense to you, there is a problem here.

Now, if by "zero" you mean "without form, and void" then you've simply reworded Genesis unnecessarily, using the word "zero" to give it a scientific patina.

And on it goes.

11. "Po-Tee-Weet?"

12. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
"Po-Tee-Weet?"
A terrific book. Although the movie bombed at the box office, I still liked it.

13. For MeteorWayne. Yep, after gazing at this Thread I think I will retire to the Philosphy Forum. westwind.

14. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
Basically what I'm getting at is that empty space (a vacuum) is the opposite of energy.
That is incorrect. A vacuum is just the lowest stable state of any system; that does not mean that there isn't any energy present in a vacuum.

Energy is attracted to empty space because it's trying to achieve a balance.
This statement is devoid of any meaning.

Image this on a much larger scale and that is in my opinion why gravity exists
Gravity exists because of spacetime curvature due to the presence of energy ( any form of energy ). This is General Relativity, and has been known for 96 years.

The reason why energy collects and not void is because of energy's contractive nature and void's expansive nature.
Again, a statement without any meaning.

The reason why they can never cancel each other out is because movement is a component of zero.
I don't even know what to say to that...

and our galaxy is moving away from the first energy.
...yes, while being pushed by pink unicorns...

So in order to make a unit of energy cancel out with a unit of void on earth you have to stop the entire galaxy and the sun and the earth.
Now that would be an undertaking. Good luck.

15. take a look at the "pinchoism" thread. he talks about 1 and -1 where you talk about energy vs void.

both are the same content-freev waffle.

can you check your ideas against data? (no)
can you make quantitative predictions? (no)

therefore it is useless and not science.

16. I defined what I meant by zero. It means the sum of all the forces in the universe were zero. Basically meaning that the universe existed in a state of potential.

17. "That is incorrect. A vacuum is just the lowest stable state of any system; that does not mean that there isn't any energy present in a vacuum. "

I used the term vacuum because it's similar to the idea of a void. Void in the way that I mean it literally means the inverse of energy. My idea postulates that a vacuum only has energy because energy is attracted to it. When I use the term energy I mean it in the sense that Albert Einstein meant it, meaning that matter is comprised of energy. The Equivalence of Mass and Energy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) You also have to remember that isn Einstein's equation mass is a measurement of matter. Mass - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

18. "Gravity exists because of spacetime curvature due to the presence of energy ( any form of energy ). This is General Relativity, and has been known for 96 years."

That is only a definition of gravity. It doesn't explain gravity. By my definition gravity exists because energy(matter) is attracted to void(or empty space if you want to think of it that way.) I think it's a common misconception that matter is attracted to matter. It only appears that way. I think gravity is created when matter has to compete for empty space.

19. "and our galaxy is moving away from the first energy. ...yes, while being pushed by pink unicorns..."

The universe started as a singularity. Big Bang Theory

The universe has been evenly expanding ever since. PNAS Classics -- Expanding Universe

And you can't infer from that the the universe is expanding from a central location? I've heard the "space itself is stretching idea" and I don't think it's true.

20. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
"and our galaxy is moving away from the first energy. ...yes, while being pushed by pink unicorns..."

The universe started as a singularity. Big Bang Theory

The universe has been evenly expanding ever since. PNAS Classics -- Expanding Universe

And you can't infer from that the the universe is expanding from a central location? I've heard the "space itself is stretching idea" and I don't think it's true.
Well, it turns out that the universe doesn't really care very much about what you think. Humbling, but true.

You are falling into the common trap of "argument from incredulity/ignorance" ("it makes no sense to me, so it can't be right.")

Observations, and theories informed by those observations, refute what you believe.

Before you take on the rather large task of overturning the entire body of modern cosmology, you first need to understand what you seek to overturn. It's painfully obvious that you haven't done anywhere near the amount of prefatory homework needed.

A good start for the layman might be UCLA professor Ned Wright's cosmology faq. Google for it.

21. "So in order to make a unit of energy cancel out with a unit of void on earth you have to stop the entire galaxy and the sun and the earth. Now that would be an undertaking. Good luck."

There is a way to cheat. Here's how.

E = 0 when ʋₑ = -ʋₑᵤ.

E is energy.
ʋₑ is the velocity of an amount of energy.

ʋₑᵤ is the velocity of the expansion of the universe.

This expression is saying energy equals zero when it is at rest. You can practice this on earth by bringing particles to absolute zero with a velocity which is exactly negative to the velocity of the expansion of the universe relative to our position in space.

And please don't reply to this with the word "impossible." Just because we haven't done it yet doesn't mean it can never happen.

22. "Observations, and theories informed by those observations, refute what you believe." What theories refute what I believe?

23. We can also prove my idea right if we observe that matter on the edge of the universe is increasing in mass. Although at this time we can't directly observe this we should be able to observe that there is a higher volume of mass at the edge of the observable universe than the current Big Bang Theory provides for.

24. Which it isn't.

25.

26. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
"Gravity exists because of spacetime curvature due to the presence of energy ( any form of energy ). This is General Relativity, and has been known for 96 years."

That is only a definition of gravity. It doesn't explain gravity.
Yes, it explains gravity perfectly. Space-time becomes curved, and any body moving through space-time thus follows that curvature on a geodesic. It really doesn't get any simpler than that.

27. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers

And you can't infer from that the the universe is expanding from a central location?
No. There is no center.

I've heard the "space itself is stretching idea" and I don't think it's true.
That is just your own opinion - unfortunately reality doesn't seem to care very much what you believe.

28. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
And your point is...?

29. "No. There is no center."

If the expansion of the universe is applied to any model of the universe there is a center. WMAP- Shape of the Universe

The universe in my opinion is finite. If you say you have proof to the contrary then I would like to see it. Past the edges of the universe there is only potential, which is another way of saying nothing at all. You can create something out of nothing if you collapse it's potential by defining it's characteristics. When you introduce energy into potential you define a unit of energy which defines a unit of space(void).

30. The Lopsided Universe | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

"The point is that the universe is overall just a little bit more dense on one side than the other," If you have a limited view of the universe, and you aren't in it's center, it would appear that the universe is lopsided because you are viewing the effects of the farthest reaches of the universe where matter is still being created.

31. "Yes, it explains gravity perfectly. Space-time becomes curved, and any body moving through space-time thus follows that curvature on a geodesic. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. "

Observing the curvature of space-time doesn't explain why gravity exists. Light is energy and is subject to gravity just like all matter in the universe. So all Einstein was saying is that when light passes by a large amount of matter it bends. That doesn't explain why gravity exists any better than Newton's apple did.

32. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
Observing the curvature of space-time doesn't explain why gravity exists. Light is energy and is subject to gravity just like all matter in the universe. So all Einstein was saying is that when light passes by a large amount of matter it bends. That doesn't explain why gravity exists any better than Newton's apple did.
I don't think you understand what I was saying - gravity exists because space-time is no longer flat in the presence of energy. Energy implies gravity. In turn, gravity implies energy. The two are just facets of the same thing. In GR, gravity is no longer separate from what causes it; you cannot have any energy without gravity, and the other way around. That is why gravity exists.

33. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
If the expansion of the universe is applied to any model of the universe there is a center. WMAP- Shape of the Universe
No, there is no center. Did you even read the article you referenced ? Where does it say that there is a center ? Please quote the exact sentence. I sure can't see it.
I quote from the Wikipedia article History of the Center of the Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

"The cosmological principle is an extension of the Copernican principle which states that the universe is homogeneous (the same observational evidence is available to observers at different locations in the universe) and isotropic (the same observational evidence is available by looking in any direction in the universe). A homogeneous, isotropic universe does not have a center.[23]"

Like I said to you before, this is basic differential geometry. The problem here is only that you don't understand it. You should really get more familiar with basic cosmological principles before attacking a model that you do not even understand.

The universe in my opinion is finite.
I personally share your opinion on this, but please note that there are other possibilities. At the moment we do not actually know for certain what the global topology of the universe is.

Past the edges of the universe there is only potential
The universe does not have an edge either, just like it doesn't have a center. There is no "outside".

34. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
The Lopsided Universe | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

"The point is that the universe is overall just a little bit more dense on one side than the other," If you have a limited view of the universe, and you aren't in it's center, it would appear that the universe is lopsided because you are viewing the effects of the farthest reaches of the universe where matter is still being created.
Once again, there is no center and no edge. There is however a limit to how far we can see, i.e. how much of the universe we can actually observe; this is because of the finite age of the universe, and the finite speed of light. The total size of the universe ( assuming for the moment that it is finite ) is likely much, much larger than the bit we can observe.
Nothing is being created at the edge, because there is no edge. There is only a limit to how far we can see, and in all likelihood there are more mass concentrations outside the observable area, but those still have an observable effect in terms of gravitation.

35. As it seems it is required, I'll say it as well: There is no centre and no edge. The "point" of origin is everywhere. Even though there is a sphere of an observable universe around us, the same sphere would be seen from any point in the universe, including distances farther than the observable universe from our perspective.

36. I still disagree. Using the standard model of the universe (http://scienceforums.com/uploads/gal...166_289965.jpg) there is still a center from which it is expanding. That's like saying if you take a round, flat piece of rubber and stretch it evenly in all directions it doesn't have a center.

37. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
I still disagree. Using the standard model of the universe (http://scienceforums.com/uploads/gal...166_289965.jpg) there is still a center from which it is expanding. That's like saying if you take a round, flat piece of rubber and stretch it evenly in all directions it doesn't have a center.
Disagree all you like, you're still wrong.

You don't seem to understand the difference between an analogy and reality.

38. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
I still disagree. Using the standard model of the universe (http://scienceforums.com/uploads/gal...166_289965.jpg) there is still a center from which it is expanding. That's like saying if you take a round, flat piece of rubber and stretch it evenly in all directions it doesn't have a center.
Answer us a simple question please - on the surface of a balloon, where is the center point ? Note the word "surface", not "interior".
Spacetime is very much like the surface of a balloon, only with two additional dimensions. So where is the center ?

39. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
I still disagree. Using the standard model of the universe (http://scienceforums.com/uploads/gal...166_289965.jpg)
I think that diagram is showing the observable universe (hard to say as it is not clear where you stole it from). In which case the cetner is wherever the observer is.

That's like saying if you take a round, flat piece of rubber and stretch it evenly in all directions it doesn't have a center.
If it is

(a) infinitely large then it doesn't have a center.

(b) folded round to form a sphere or a torus then it doesn't have a center.

Those are the two possible descriptions of the universe.

40. The other point is that the big bang theory can make quantitative predictions (such as the apparent temperature and distribution of the CMB, the relative amounts of hydrogen, helium and other elements. etc.). These predictions can be tested against increasingly accurate measurements. So far, they match.

What can your "theory" do?

...

...

...

Oh yes, that's right. Nothing.

Not a theory. Sorry. Please feel free to try again.

41. I still disagree. Using the standard model of the universe
That is, again, just a graphical representation. You can't draw 3D curved space true to life on a 2d surface. That is why the balloon analogy is used. Instead of just disagreeing, try and find out and understand why cosmologists, with years of training and experience, disagree with your naive understanding instead of proclaiming it too be wrong. You are being awfully presumptuous.

42. Originally Posted by Strange

If it is

(a) infinitely large then it doesn't have a center.

(b) folded round to form a sphere or a torus then it doesn't have a center.

Those are the two possible descriptions of the universe.
Exactly.
Just to add to this : topologically, for any 4-manifold that is smooth and unbounded, the concept of a center point is meaningless. It is irrelevant whether the manifold is finite or not, or what its geometry is.
A 4-manifold that is bounded may have a center point ( though that is not a necessity ), so long as the manifold is embedded in a higher dimensional manifold with at least D+1 dimensions - otherwise the concept of "center" is once again meaningless. However, such a center point will always be outside the 4-manifold, i.e. not part of the universe, and thus physically meaningless.

43. You can't mix two theories. The universe can't be infinitely large and come from a finite source. If it's folded around to form a sphere then the center is in the opposite direction of expansion. In this case the center is just an idea rather than a physical place but there is still a center.

44. No there isn't.

45. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
The universe can't be infinitely large and come from a finite source.
Of course it can.

If it's folded around to form a sphere then the center is in the opposite direction of expansion. In this case the center is just an idea rather than a physical place but there is still a center.
If it's folded in that way then the universe would correspond not to the volume, but to the surface of the (hyper-)sphere. A center point can then only exist if the universe in embedded in a higher dimensional manifold of at least D=5, and such a center would then be outside the universe. This is a topological possibility, however, at present there is no evidence that our universe is embedded in a higher dimensional manifold, even though this possibility cannot be 100% ruled out, of course.
Regardless, I think the original assertion in post 18 was that the universe started from a central location within it, and that statement is always false and/or meaningless. If you still doubt that, then give an answer to my question in post 37. You have completely ignored that.

46. In the case of an S^3 universe there is no physical center, but there is a direction that is opposite to expansion that will point to an abstract center.

47. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
In the case of an S^3 universe there is no physical center, but there is a direction that is opposite to expansion that will point to an abstract center.
Firstly, the universe is not a but a 4-manifold.
Secondly, this would only be possible if the 4-manifold is embedded in a manifold of at least D=5, in which case it may be possible to define a center. However, that point will be outside the 4-manifold.

48. In the same way that the centre of the surface of a sphere is inside of the sphere and not on the surface itself.

49. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
The universe can't be infinitely large and come from a finite source.
Of course it can.
Markus, I think you said in post 32, of this thread, that you favoured the view the universe was finite in extent. I agree with that position, but accept it is not necessarily the case.
I do, however, find it extremely difficult to understand how something which began almost 14 billion years ago could possibly be infinitely large!
Could you explain your thinking here?

50. One of the possibilities of the big bang is that at the instant of the "bang" the universe was infinite in size. I am not sure what that would mean for the global topology though. It doesn't preclude local curvature or a global curvature however. I think one of the possible shapes of the universe is a saddle shape, which would still have a general global topology, but could also be infinite in size, if I am not mistaken. Also not sure what an infinite universe would imply about inflation and the distribution of matter and energy.

51. Originally Posted by KALSTER
One of the possibilities of the big bang is that at the instant of the "bang" the universe was infinite in size. I am not sure what that would mean for the global topology though. It doesn't preclude local curvature or a global curvature however. I think one of the possible shapes of the universe is a saddle shape, which would still have a general global topology, but could also be infinite in size, if I am not mistaken. Also not sure what an infinite universe would imply about inflation and the distribution of matter and energy.
I tend to believe that it is usually dangerous to get involved, in this type of thread, without a real grasp of mathematical topics such as topology, but, of course, that view hasn't stopped me in this instance.
For me, saying "one of the possibilities of the big bang is that------------ the universe was infinite in size" means that space was infinite in extent. I really do find that idea difficult to accept especially since I am far from certain that infinities actually exist, in nature, and are, in reality, simply a product of the human mind.

52. Halliday, your position is an elegant and honourable one to take. You are discomfitted by aspects of theory, yet recognise that this may be reflection of your lack of sufficient relevant skill sets in maths, rather than a problem with the theory. Travis's position appears to be "I have an undestanding of BB theory because I have read several popular works on the subject; I shall ignore the fact that these used analogies and oversimplifcations; I shall pretend what they said was real and I shall combine this with common sense (which only a fool would reject) and offer my own hypothesis."

Travis,
that may sound harsh, but in your OP you said this:
The questions I'm asking are does this seem correct, is this idea insightful in any way and are there any shortcomings?
Several knowledgeable posters have told you where the shortcomings are. You have chosen to ignore these. I'm left wondering if you really wanted to know about shortcomings, or were actually hoping your idea would be saluted and praised.

53. Originally Posted by Halliday
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
The universe can't be infinitely large and come from a finite source.
Of course it can.
Markus, I think you said in post 32, of this thread, that you favoured the view the universe was finite in extent. I agree with that position, but accept it is not necessarily the case.
I do, however, find it extremely difficult to understand how something which began almost 14 billion years ago could possibly be infinitely large!
Could you explain your thinking here?
Well, my thinking was that there may be a possibility of the global curvature/topology not being constant; for example, the universe may have begun with global positive curvature ( spherical, finite ), and then this curvature may have reduced to zero ( flat, infinite ). This would have been much like a flower opening up - space-time would have literally opened itself up into a flat "sheet" without boundary. It would be interesting to investigate the implications of such a scenario.
I am not by any means saying that this is actually what was happening, or that it is even allowable under GR, I am merely suggesting that this might have been a possibility. And in such a scenario the universe would have originated in one source, yet be infinite in our present time.

54. Originally Posted by John Galt
Halliday, you are discomfitted by aspects of theory, yet recognise that this may be reflection of your lack of sufficient relevant skill sets in maths, rather than a problem with the theory.

Travis, several knowledgeable posters have told you where the shortcomings are. You have chosen to ignore these. I'm left wondering if you really wanted to know about shortcomings, or were actually hoping your idea would be saluted and praised.
Take your point, and I am certainly not in agreement with the OP by Travis.
I am still hoping for a clearer (possibly non-technical) answer to the question about how something (the Universe) which had a beginning, a finite period of time ago, could be infinite in extent.
It is possible, for example, to give fairly simple answers to some questions. There have been a number of threads recently, here and in the Astronomy sub forum, where the question, about whether the Universe has a central point, has come up.
I don't know if this is an oversimplification, but I have always understood that a central point would imply the BB had occurred in an already existing space and, as we know space, along with time and matter, was created by the BB event.
As Kalster said, in post 34, "the point of origin is everywhere".

55. Originally Posted by Halliday
I am still hoping for a clearer (possibly non-technical) answer to the question about how something (the Universe) which had a beginning, a finite period of time ago, could be infinite in extent.
The big bang theory just says that the universe was once hotter and denser than it is now. If the universe is finite in size then it was smaller then than it is now. If the universe is infinite, then it was infinite then.

IF the universe had a beginning (which we don't know) then that suggests "something" came from nothing. There is no real difference between a finite amount of something coming from nothing and infinite amount of something coming from nothing. (Both equally counter-intuitive).

56. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Halliday
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
The universe can't be infinitely large and come from a finite source.
Of course it can.
Markus, I think you said in post 32, of this thread, that you favoured the view the universe was finite in extent. I agree with that position, but accept it is not necessarily the case.
I do, however, find it extremely difficult to understand how something which began almost 14 billion years ago could possibly be infinitely large!
Could you explain your thinking here?
Well, my thinking was that there may be a possibility of the global curvature/topology not being constant; for example, the universe may have begun with global positive curvature ( spherical, finite ), and then this curvature may have reduced to zero ( flat, infinite ). This would have been much like a flower opening up - space-time would have literally opened itself up into a flat "sheet" without boundary. It would be interesting to investigate the implications of such a scenario.
I am not by any means saying that this is actually what was happening, or that it is even allowable under GR, I am merely suggesting that this might have been a possibility. And in such a scenario the universe would have originated in one source, yet be infinite in our present time.
Thanks for the reply, but I think this stuff is over my head. Can I ask what exactly the term "without boundary" means? I assume it is the same as "unbounded" and that it is not necessarily the same as infinite in extent.

57. Originally Posted by Halliday
Thanks for the reply, but I think this stuff is over my head. Can I ask what exactly the term "without boundary" means? I assume it is the same as "unbounded" and that it is not necessarily the same as infinite in extent.
You are correct, "without boundary" means unbounded, and that doesn't necessarily mean infinite.
In this case though I actually did mean infinite - if there is no curvature and no boundary, then it must be infinite. I should have made this clearer though, sorry.

58. if there is no curvature and no boundary, then it must be infinite
I think I said this earlier as well. Glad I wasn't talking bollocks. :-) (Edit: Oh, I think I was talking to forrest noble in the Centre of the Universe thread)

What would an infinite universe imply about inflation/expansion and matter/energy distribution and how much matter there actually is? Is infinite matter/energy equally as possible as infinite space?

59. Originally Posted by KALSTER
What would an infinite universe imply about inflation/expansion and matter/energy distribution and how much matter there actually is? Is infinite matter/energy equally as possible as infinite space?
Well, I don't think it would change anything so far as the basic premises of cosmology are concerned. Inflation/metric expansion can still take place, even in an infinite universe. Also, I see no law that forbids an infinite amount of matter/energy be present, though this is somewhat "philosophically ugly".

60. Inflation/metric expansion can still take place, even in an infinite universe
I have no problem with this bit, but an infinite universe might imply new problems that would need addressing as I see it. In a finite universe it is relatively easy to imagine all matter expanding away from each other without implying the existence of a centre, but if the universe was infinite at the moment of the bang, would that not imply a centre point the matter would need to expand from? The only alternative I can see (admittedly naive), is if matter was infinite as well and expansion occurs between clumps of matter, as observed, but the same happening at points at arbitrarily large distances from each other; infinite space and matter. Am I missing something?

61. Originally Posted by KALSTER
I have no problem with this bit, but an infinite universe might imply new problems that would need addressing as I see it. In a finite universe it is relatively easy to imagine all matter expanding away from each other without implying the existence of a centre, but if the universe was infinite at the moment of the bang, would that not imply a centre point the matter would need to expand from? The only alternative I can see (admittedly naive), is if matter was infinite as well and expansion occurs between clumps of matter, as observed, but the same happening at points at arbitrarily large distances from each other; infinite space and matter. Am I missing something?
No, you are quite right. In such a universe the Big Bang would take place at every point simultaneously, starting from infinite matter density throughout space-time. Space-time would then expand from that point in time onwards.
This is not a very elegant model and just feels "wrong" to me - I am definitely not a proponent of such a hypothesis. But I suppose it is a possibility.

62. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
In such a universe the Big Bang would take place at every point simultaneously, starting from infinite matter density throughout space-time. Space-time would then expand from that point in time onwards.
It may be easier to think of "change of density" rather than "expansion" in the infinite case.

63. I suppose one could come up with all sorts of alternatives that would still adhere to GR. One option is a hybrid between solid state and big bang, where a big bang that created both space and matter occurred within an already existing infinite expanse of matter and energy (though we would not be able to tell it apart from other options I think).

Another one I have been wondering about, is if, geometrically, it is possible in 3D for a causality isolated big bang universe bubble to exist within, again, an infinite expanse. I.e., exactly the big bang universe we now think we are in (unbounded and closed), but existing within an existing infinite expanse. Does that make sense topologically? We might be able to detect this version though I think, if possible. Nothing inside the bubble could affect anything outside of it except gravitationally, though energy from the outside could enter it. Is something like that possible? A 1D representation of this might be a closed Omega sign??

I might discuss this in a separate thread.

64. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Halliday
I am still hoping for a clearer (possibly non-technical) answer to the question about how something (the Universe) which had a beginning, a finite period of time ago, could be infinite in extent.
The big bang theory just says that the universe was once hotter and denser than it is now. If the universe is finite in size then it was smaller then than it is now. If the universe is infinite, then it was infinite then.

IF the universe had a beginning (which we don't know) then that suggests "something" came from nothing. There is no real difference between a finite amount of something coming from nothing and infinite amount of something coming from nothing. (Both equally counter-intuitive).
From what I have read it seems reasonable to say that the BB Theory is, by far, the best explanation we have for the formation of the Universe.
When you ask "if the universe had a beginning (which we don't know)" that seems to suggest there may still be some merit to consideration of some version of, what I believed to be, the largely discredited Steady State Theory.
I understood that a belief in the BB Theory implied an acceptance of the fact the Universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago. If space, time and matter were created by the BB event what then could have been infinite either "before", during or just after the BB?

65. Originally Posted by Halliday
When you ask "if the universe had a beginning (which we don't know)" that seems to suggest there may still be some merit to consideration of some version of, what I believed to be, the largely discredited Steady State Theory.
I understood that a belief in the BB Theory implied an acceptance of the fact the Universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago. If space, time and matter were created by the BB event what then could be infinite either before, during or just after the BB?
I don't think any version of a steady state theory has any hope given our current understanding.

But the big bang model cannot extrapolate back to t=0 so we can't really say anything about that time. It may have been a "big bounce" (although currently the evidence doesn't seem to point that way). It may have come from nothing. There could have been some previous state we don't yet understand. We just don't know.

It may be that future theories (e.g. quantum gravity) change our understanding of the big bang dramatically. Or not.

66. Originally Posted by Halliday
From what I have read it seems reasonable to say that the BB Theory is, by far, the best explanation we have for the formation of the Universe.
With the possible exception of some clumsy popularizations for magazines and such, cosmologists are generally careful not to claim that they have a theory for the formation of the universe, if by "formation" you mean "creation." What they have is a set of equations that describes the evolution of the universe. If you run these equations backwards in time, they ultimately break down. There is thus no theory for the creation of the universe, but we can describe what happened from about the end of the Planck epoch onward.

67. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Another one I have been wondering about, is if, geometrically, it is possible in 3D for a causality isolated big bang universe bubble to exist within, again, an infinite expanse. I.e., exactly the big bang universe we now think we are in (unbounded and closed), but existing within an existing infinite expanse. Does that make sense topologically? We might be able to detect this version though I think, if possible. Nothing inside the bubble could affect anything outside of it except gravitationally, though energy from the outside could enter it. Is something like that possible?
Yes, this is indeed possible, in the sense that our 4D universe could be embedded in a higher dimensional manifold. In such a scenario the higher dimensions might not be directly observable, but it is possible that gravitation acts across all existing dimensions; this would very elegantly explain why gravity is so weak as compared to all other fundamental forces, since the other forces would be restricted to our "own" 4-manifold whereas gravity acts through all dimensions.
This idea is explored in the "Brane Cosmology" model, and appears to be perfectly compatible with Einstein's field equations, and what's even more, provides a natural solution to the Hierarchy Problem :

Brane cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I
personally think this is potentially a very promising model, though of course we are not currently in a position to make a judgement as to its viability. The crucial missing piece of the puzzle is a consistent theory of quantum gravity.

68. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Halliday
From what I have read it seems reasonable to say that the BB Theory is, by far, the best explanation we have for the formation of the Universe.
With the possible exception of some clumsy popularizations for magazines and such, cosmologists are generally careful not to claim that they have a theory for the formation of the universe, if by "formation" you mean "creation." What they have is a set of equations that describes the evolution of the universe. If you run these equations backwards in time, they ultimately break down. There is thus no theory for the creation of the universe, but we can describe what happened from about the end of the Planck epoch onward.
Understand what you say!
I certainly did not mean to imply the BB Theory was a complete and full explanation, or the last word, on anything!

69. Originally Posted by Travis Meyers
Did you actually read it? I explained how energy is created, I explained how matter is created, I explained why time is a relative measurement, and I explained why gravity exists. Did you know that as of yet no one knows definitively why gravity exists?
Travis, without matter there can be no energy in the first place because something created the energy which you speak of.... Thus disproving this to me....
I think it more likely that the universe cycles itself because what we know about atoms they don't just die.... Instead they change and atoms have to exist through out the universe as I see it....

Love that your interested in the subject though.... And never forget form your own opinions chances are you'll be just as right as next guy on the subject....

70. Originally Posted by warthog213
[And never forget form your own opinions chances are you'll be just as right as next guy on the subject....
Unless the next guy is someone who has actually studied the subject and tested their ideas against reality. But I guess that must seem like hard work to some people.

71. Originally Posted by warthog213
And never forget form your own opinions chances are you'll be just as right as next guy on the subject....
Presumably then you never go to a doctor since your "opinion" on what ails you is just as likely to be right as his.
Likewise you don't bother with car mechanics or any other specialist in any field.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement