Jump to content

what is the cause of big bang, beginning of universe?


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Also, the BB wasn't necessarily the beginning of the universe. The BB theory describes only the development from an earlier very hot and very dense state. It's possible the universe has always existed.

But if the "hot dense state" was the universe (spacetime), then the nothingness around it was not, I assume.
Or do we count the "place" that spacetime is expanding into as a part of the universe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, QuantumT said:

But if the "hot dense state" was the universe (spacetime), then the nothingness around it was not, I assume.
Or do we count the "place" that spacetime is expanding into as a part of the universe?

No. I think we count it as part of our imaginations.

There is absolutely no evidence that it is there, and there is no requirement for it aside from the way we tend to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. I think we count it as part of our imaginations.

There is absolutely no evidence that it is there, and there is no requirement for it aside from the way we tend to think.

So, you're saying that "everything" (spacetime) grows bigger, but there is no place to grow in?

Doesn't that defy logic?
 

Edit: Unless we name the place it's growing into: "Does not exist", of course.

Edited by QuantumT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

But if the "hot dense state" was the universe (spacetime), then the nothingness around it was not, I assume.

There is no nothingness around it. The universe is all there is (nothing outside)

24 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Or do we count the "place" that spacetime is expanding into as a part of the universe?

It is not expanding into anything.

If that is hard to get your head around, there are two things that might help:

1. Assume the universe is infinite. If it gets bigger, it is still infinite (see Hilbert's Hotel for a good analogy).

2. Just think of it as the distance between things increasing, rather than the universe getting bigger.

3. Or think of it as the average density decreasing.

Note that even if the universe is finite, there is no "edge" or boundary, so there is no "outside".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

So, you're saying that "everything" (spacetime) grows bigger, but there is no place to grow in?

Doesn't that defy logic?

Yes. Based only on the set of assumptions we are wired with it certainly does. But there is no reason to believe that set of assumptions is correct. There is no evidence or requirement for it.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is no nothingness around it. The universe is all there is (nothing outside)

It is not expanding into anything.

If that is hard to get your head around, there are two things that might help:

1. Assume the universe is infinite. If it gets bigger, it is still infinite (see Hilbert's Hotel for a good analogy).

2. Just think of it as the distance between things increasing, rather than the universe getting bigger.

3. Or think of it as the average density decreasing.

Note that even if the universe is finite, there is no "edge" or boundary, so there is no "outside".

It might defy intuition, but that's not the same thing (and not really relevant!)

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yes. Based only on the set of assumptions we are wired with it certainly does. But there is no reason to believe that set of assumptions is correct. There is no evidence or requirement for it.

I get it now. But it wasn't Hilbert's Hotel that helped me. It was a name I gave it. I call it: "Does not exist"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Space is created between things, so, we don't need an 'outside'.

There are two reasons I thought of an "outside". Mainly because I've seen universe simulation videos, where you actually look at it from beyond.
And secondly because of the multiverse model, where our universe is just one of countless neighbor universes in an endless vast vacuum.

Edited by QuantumT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

There are two reasons I thought of an "outside". Mainly because I've seen universe simulation videos, where you actually look at it from beyond.
And secondly because of the multiverse model, where our universe is just one of countless neighbor universes in an endless vast vacuum.

Yes, it's a necessary visual device to imagine an outside but we should be mindful it is not actually part of that model. The MV  model is another different model but don't mix them up and it's not generally accepted as the mainstream model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Also, the BB wasn't necessarily the beginning of the universe. The BB theory describes only the development from an earlier very hot and very dense state. It's possible the universe has always existed.

Are you suggesting a big bounce?

By asking that, I also bring this thread back on the intended track ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Are you suggesting a big bounce?;)

I was pointing out that assuming the BB was the "beginning of the universe" was incorrect. 

I think it's likely the universe is cyclic, but we can't assume it. We observe expansion, but what mechanism does the universe use to contract back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think it's likely the universe is cyclic, but we can't assume it. We observe expansion, but what mechanism does the universe use to contract back?

Particularly since we observe that the expansion is accelerating. I suppose though that that scenario would rest on whether the DE will always be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Are you suggesting a big bounce?

There are multiple speculative ideas for what might have happened: big bounce, continuous inflation, universe from nothing, infinitely old universe, and on and on.

There is no evidence for any of them currently, so pick your favourite. Dark energy would seem to make the big bounce unlikely, but maybe future discoveries will make it plausible again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.