Why a single universe, big bang theory is nuts

[Iamme]

If we are this one 14 billion light year size universe, then you tell me.........

What would have caused, out of nothing, a singular gathering of the entire mass and energy, to come together in one spot, in the deadness of nothingnes, to explode into the Big Bang?

This makes no sense, philosophically or scientifically, if you think about it.

Why would everything appear and gather to one spot? Why would a *finite* amount gather at one spot? Doesn't this seem weird to you? Doesn't it seem more plausible that there is endless infinite energy out there? And that it could be *possible* that within certain gravitational fields, parts of the infiniteness gathers together(mass, but not necessarily light) by gravitation to come to gether at a singular area? And that there is an infinite amount of such singular areas and Big Bangs that could have and perhaps are occuring, in *many* universes?

But to think that something came from nothing in only one small part of nothingness (yes, 14 billion light years is small, compared to infinity), seems like crazy notion that makes no sense. Like the author of such a notion was on drugs.

Consider: Where does the light and energy go that radiates from the stars and galaxies that are out at the edge of the 14 billion light years? Does this shine off into nothingness for al eternity? I presume so. If so, that means energy is being lost, if this universe is the *only* universe. You could suppose that the light and possible heat that radiates outward at the speed of light slows down and finally comes to a halt, at some point. But where? Do you think there is a enough gravity, out beyond the far reaches of the universe to pull the light back in after it is sent away by the star or galaxy gazillions of miles out? I kind of doubt it. Everything out there would be too weak. Light would be shot out like a bullet shot out of a gun. And I am to believe that once it gets way way out from the last star where gravity is bound to be weak way out there..that it could be drawn back in?

Now consider *this*. Suppose we believe that all traveling light *does* succumb to gravity. if *this* is true, then you can most likely throw away any map you have seen of our universe. The pictures we have been presented would be way to distorted by gravity, for us to know the true source of the light!

It's much more logical to believe that there is and never was anything like emptiness of space. That it is a logical asumption, by looking at how billions of galaxies make up one universe, with a vast expanse between galaxies...that if proportions held, you would find another universe beyond this universe in some proportion of distance as to size/distance between galaxies. (Universes would be farther apart than galaxies.) The distance would be such that gravitational forces between universes would be like that of galaxies, where there would actually be very little affect of one on the other, if any at all.

Then, the disappearing light I spoke of? Well, we would receive some of *their* light (the universe next to this one), and we would give that universe some of *our* light.

If this sort of thing is not happening, then, in theory, this singular universe would eventually die off from the energy being expelled out of it, into the nothingness of space!

Regarding nothingness of space: That *too* makes no sense. It sounds ludicrous to believe that in theory, we could travel out of the universe, as light can, entering a netherland of nothingness, yet our laws of physics would hold up. That in theory we could keep traveling away from the universe, in theory, and yet be traveling into nothing, seems preposterous.

Isn't it just logical then, considering all this, that energy does not end. Matter doesn't end. Space/time doesn't end? And that it never has had a beginning (because again this raises the quetion as to why it apeared in some singular spot in an infinite nothingness)?

And now doesn't this raise the issue that if the univese or universes could not have had some central singular creation place, then exactly what caused the creation to begin with? God? or is the word God simply a way of our identifying the words all infinite, all powerful?

[Z]

In other words, it's mind boggling, I don't get it, God must have done it?

...

Nah. Too easy an answer. Much better to assume that there is simply an infinity of energy and matter, which on occasion gathers together until it reaches a universal 'critical mass' and spawns a new universe. Which then expands in the endless sea of infinite nothing populated by other expanding universes.... in a much larger 'superuniverse'?

Why does it need a 'God' to start it? Why can't it just start on its own, every so often???

[Soapy Sam]

If the bb theory is correct, the laws of physics we understand did not apply at the time. Since our concept of "sense" is programmed by evolution in accord with the laws of physics, it follows that the big bang will not make sense.

I suspect NO description of the origin of the universe will "make sense" to us. In fact any description which seems sensible is almost certainly wrong.

[Donks]

You seem to be assuming that there was space before the big bang. You seem to be assuming that there was a "before the big bang."

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iamme
And now doesn't this raise the issue that if the univese or universes could not have had some central singular creation place, then exactly what caused the creation to begin with? God?And if you're going to think along these lines, you inescapably come to the question of what caused God.

[Jeff Corey]

I prefer the multi-universe theory by Blitherton and Hudge. They proposed that a new parallel universe is created whenever something happens in the "mother" universe. So in half of these kitten universes, Schrodinger's cat is alive and gravid. Since this process has been going on a while, we now have a very large number of parallel universes, including some in which Gore won in 2000.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Iamme
If we are this one 14 billion light year size universe, then you tell me.........


I've read a few books and the popular publications on this, so I'm no expert; but I do believe that "this" universe is considered to be larger than 14 billion light years.

The reason....Inflation. Since the end of inflation we have only been around long enough to get light from 14 billion years or so. However (there's always a catch isn't there?) due to the expansion, now accellerating, that 14 billion years view will actually be getting smaller, not larger.

As to this universe only, I admit that it makes a lot more "common sense" to imagine that there is an infinite number of them. Then our uniqueness is no longer a puzzle, nor is that concept of a human god required.

[Bikewer]

There are all sorts of competing notions.

The string-theory idea of "branes" (membranes) which bump against each other in endless series, causing expansionary events (universes) at each bump.

As I understand contemporary ideas of cosmology, the prevailing view is that what we think of as "the Void" of empty space is not a void at all, but has the energetic potential (the so-called Zero Point Energy) to spawn the occasional universe.
The spontaneous eruption of atomic particles in empty space has been observed.

Then theres (as the above poster notes) the myriad universe ideas (Martin Gardner discusses this in his newest book) which maintain that each "event" (even subatomic) spawns a new universe...

Those are just a few.

I would think that the idea that this is the "only" universe, either in space or time, is at best, unproven.

[Jeff Corey]

Or not falsifiable at this time.

[Dylab]

lamme: I'm sorry if I have misread your first post but I think you have some misunderstanding of the big bang.

I think this article in sciam is helpful: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa008&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147&pageNumber=2&catID=2

When cosmologists speak of the universe they only mean everything that we can see at our position. As the article points observers in the Andromedia galaxy have a different, albeit overlapping, universe. When cosmologists say the universe was the size of a dot then they just mean all of what we see.

Plus it is important to remember that space expanded in the big bang. I believe the idea of all the universe in one spot surrounded by nothingness is a misunderstanding.

[Dilb]

Originally posted by Dylab
I think this article in sciam is helpful: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa008&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147&pageNumber=2&catID=2


This article contains my favourite quote ever.
Thus, we can conceive of the early universe as a pile of overlapping grapefruits that stretches infinitely in all directions.

[Orangutan]

What Donk's said,

The human mind is designed to model things in 3d space so when people say "big bang" they imagine a big empty space where after a few seconds there's a boom and all this matter an light goes spilling out into the space.

And thinking like that you are already on the wrong track. One dificult concept to get your head around is that there is no time or space "Outside" the universe. Stop it! you see your already thinking of a wall of photons zooming into the void. Everything (time and space) are inside the universe.

[IXP]

Okay, you have suggested an alternate hypothesis to the one accepted by practically all physicists and astronomers. Now, the way science advances, is to take such a new hypothesis, make a prediction based on it that differs from the standard accepted theory, and verify that your hypothesis gives the correct prediction.

We are wating.

Meanwhile, please read Stephen Hawkins' "A Brief History of Time'. All of your questions are answered in it in a way that a non-scientist can gain at least some understanding.

IXP

[Number Six]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I prefer the multi-universe theory by Blitherton and Hudge. They proposed that a new parallel universe is created whenever something happens in the "mother" universe. So in half of these kitten universes, Schrodinger's cat is alive and gravid. Since this process has been going on a while, we now have a very large number of parallel universes, including some in which Gore won in 2000.

Here's the thing with the multi-universe theory though...okay, so two universes are created, one where the cat lives and another where the cat dies, but the cat itself is composed of a jillion subatomoic particles, each of which have a probability of going one way or another at any instant and for each way they can go a universe has to be created. So there isn't just two universes, one where the cat lives and one where the cat dies, but rather there are virtually an infinite number of universes where the cat lives and an infinite number where the cat dies. And that is just considering one cat...what happens if you consider the whole rest of the universe too!

In other words, it seems to me that there are infinitely many universes being created constantly in every infinitely small time interval. This kinda takes the fun out of it for me. If there were, say, a thousand different universes then it would be interesting to know what happens in each of them, but if there are infintely many universes then basically everything _must_ happen in some universe or another.

There is a universe where you are the most evil imaginable in the world and there is a universe where you are the best person imaginable. And there is a universe where you are 0.99999999 as bad as the most evil person imaginable and there is a universe where you are 0.99999999 as good as the best person imaginable. And on and on. And there are an infinite number of _each_ of those universes. At that point, in my mind I've gone from "Wow" to "Big deal." If everything _must_ happen then anything that does happen seems trivial.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Number Six
Here's the thing with the multi-universe theory though...okay, so two universes are created, one where the cat lives and another where the cat dies, but the cat itself is composed of a jillion subatomoic particles, each of which have a probability of going one way or another at any instant and for each way they can go a universe has to be created. So there isn't just two universes, one where the cat lives and one where the cat dies, but rather there are virtually an infinite number of universes where the cat lives and an infinite number where the cat dies. And that is just considering one cat...what happens if you consider the whole rest of the universe too!

In other words, it seems to me that there are infinitely many universes being created constantly in every infinitely small time interval. This kinda takes the fun out of it for me. If there were, say, a thousand different universes then it would be interesting to know what happens in each of them, but if there are infintely many universes then basically everything _must_ happen in some universe or another.

There is a universe where you are the most evil imaginable in the world and there is a universe where you are the best person imaginable. And there is a universe where you are 0.99999999 as bad as the most evil person imaginable and there is a universe where you are 0.99999999 as good as the best person imaginable. And on and on. And there are an infinite number of _each_ of those universes. At that point, in my mind I've gone from "Wow" to "Big deal." If everything _must_ happen then anything that does happen seems trivial.

Personally I think that in 99.99999999999999999999+ percent of them you couldn't exist. But, on the other hand, infinity is an interesting concept.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iamme
What would have caused, out of nothing, a singular gathering of the entire mass and energy, to come together in one spot, in the deadness of nothingnes, to explode into the Big Bang?

This makes no sense, philosophically or scientifically, if you think about it.Maybe that's why there are still scientists studying the question.

Why would everything appear and gather to one spot? Why would a *finite* amount gather at one spot?Because that "one spot" was all there was at the time. There wasn't anything outside that one spot. This is a difficult concept - to think that the universe at one time was about the size that a grapefruit is today - but science has always been fringed with difficult concepts.

Doesn't this seem weird to you? Doesn't it seem more plausible that there is endless infinite energy out there?Nope. I find the concept of an infinite amount of any concrete thing even more implausible than the concept of a grapefruit-sized universe. Infinity is an abstract idea that only has meaning in a mathematical sense, and has no actual physical representation in anything.

But to think that something came from nothing in only one small part of nothingness (yes, 14 billion light years is small, compared to infinity), seems like crazy notion that makes no sense. Like the author of such a notion was on drugs.I get the opposite feeling - that anyone that thinks that there is an infinite amount of anything, when everything our senses tell us points to there being a finite amount of everything, must be on drugs.

Consider: Where does the light and energy go that radiates from the stars and galaxies that are out at the edge of the 14 billion light years? Does this shine off into nothingness for al eternity?1) Elind is right; due to the expansion of space, the universe is actually much bigger than 14 billion LY.
2) There is no "edge" to the universe as I believe you are using that term.
3) If you haven't yet, go read the Scientific American article Dylab linked to.

Isn't it just logical then, considering all this, that energy does not end. Matter doesn't end. Space/time doesn't end?No. the best we, in our temporal prison, can say is that energy, matter, space, and time hasn't ended yet. This may sound like a glib answer but it isn't. How could we ever know that time has no end?

And that it never has had a beginning (because again this raises the quetion as to why it apeared in some singular spot in an infinite nothingness)?That's a valid question; I see no reason to try to sidestep it. So our current understanding raises it. Fine. Let's be up to the challenge of trying to figure out the answer to it, instead of falling back and saying "Phew! That one's too hard. Let's just answer it 'goddidit' and move on."

And now doesn't this raise the issue that if the univese or universes could not have had some central singular creation place, then exactly what caused the creation to begin with? God? or is the word God simply a way of our identifying the words all infinite, all powerful? If the universe/multiverse couldn't have existed without being created by God, why would anyone assume that God could exist without being created? If you assume an original "first cause" (to use a lifegazerism), why not just let it be the kernel of the universe instead of taking it back a step and requiring an un-created Creator of that kernel?

[Elind]

Originally posted by Iamme


Isn't it just logical then, considering all this, that energy does not end. Matter doesn't end. Space/time doesn't end? And that it never has had a beginning (because again this raises the quetion as to why it apeared in some singular spot in an infinite nothingness)?

And now doesn't this raise the issue that if the univese or universes could not have had some central singular creation place, then exactly what caused the creation to begin with? God? or is the word God simply a way of our identifying the words all infinite, all powerful?

Now we are tending to the religion section of the forum, but if we want to be philisophical, and logical, I would like to ask what others think about this "something" from "nothing" that always comes up.

Semantics may not be the defining method to resolve this, but it does seem to me that "nothing" is meaningless without "something". In fact I might put it crudely and say that "0" is only a special case of numbers theory (?).

In short, why is "something" any more illogical than "nothing"? Is nothing just the equivalent of the zero?

[CaveDave]

Originally posted by IXP

Meanwhile, please read Stephen Hawkins' "A Brief History of Time'. All of your questions are answered in it in a way that a non-scientist can gain at least some understanding.

IXP

Absolutely!
I was about to suggest this myself.
I am currently re-reading this exact book.

Dave

[Soapy Sam]

That exact book?

Or do you have the similar one by Stephen Hawking, the famous scientist from a parallel universe?

:D

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Number Six

In other words, it seems to me that there are infinitely many universes being created constantly in every infinitely small time interval. This kinda takes the fun out of it for me. If there were, say, a thousand different universes then it would be interesting to know what happens in each of them, but if there are infintely many universes then basically everything _must_ happen in some universe or another.

There is a universe where you are the most evil imaginable in the world and there is a universe where you are the best person imaginable. And there is a universe where you are 0.99999999 as bad as the most evil person imaginable and there is a universe where you are 0.99999999 as good as the best person imaginable. And on and on. And there are an infinite number of _each_ of those universes. At that point, in my mind I've gone from "Wow" to "Big deal." If everything _must_ happen then anything that does happen seems trivial.

It wouldn't be infinite if space is quantized as has been suggested. But since it's at something like the scale of (from memory) 10 to the power -33 then it's still quite a large number of variations for each possibility.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Wudang
It wouldn't be infinite if space is quantized as has been suggested. But since it's at something like the scale of (from memory) 10 to the power -33 then it's still quite a large number of variations for each possibility.

Why cannot it be quantized and infinite?

[Bronze Dog]

Consider: Where does the light and energy go that radiates from the stars and galaxies that are out at the edge of the 14 billion light years? Does this shine off into nothingness for al eternity?
It's my understanding that there is no edge: Time and space are self-contained. What happens when Pac-Man goes off one side of the screen? He comes in from the other side. Pac-Man mazes are self-contained. You might want to read Sphereland, the sequel to Flatland for a better illustration.

[Dr Adequate]

Isn't it great that we have lamme around to tell us where Einstein went wrong?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Elind
Why cannot it be quantized and infinite?

Please! Infinite universes are so 20th century!

I read the post as arguing not that space was infinite in extent but infinite in granularity which is a different issue.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Elind
Why cannot it be quantized and infinite? Because nothing infinite exists.

Arbitrarily huge, maybe, but ultimately finite.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Wudang
Please! Infinite universes are so 20th century!

I read the post as arguing not that space was infinite in extent but infinite in granularity which is a different issue.

You're sure about that are you? I would be interested in any links that discuss the issue, since I am having trouble with the difference between infinite size and infinite granularity (as with most things infinite), given that if you hop from one grain to another you could carry on for infinity. Perhaps our three dimension cannot be infinite? Is that what you mean?

[Elind]

Originally posted by Beleth
Because nothing infinite exists.

Arbitrarily huge, maybe, but ultimately finite.

That sound pretty absolute. Granted we tend to have trouble with infinities, but at the trivial level we can always add one to anything, so could you explain a little more why you say that?

Personally I don't have a problem with infinities if it's considered in the context of to be or not to be, so to speak.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Elind
You're sure about that are you? I would be interested in any links that discuss the issue, since I am having trouble with the difference between infinite size and infinite granularity (as with most things infinite), given that if you hop from one grain to another you could carry on for infinity. Perhaps our three dimension cannot be infinite? Is that what you mean?
What? Am I sure that the size of the universe and the nature of space are different issues? Of course, they effect each other. I'm not sure what you're saying. If you want infinity in the equations you need an infinite multiplier so
either the universe is infinite in extent (and the evidence says no)
or space is infinitely divisible (which it may not be.)

[CaveDave]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
That exact book?

Or do you have the similar one by Stephen Hawking, the famous scientist from a parallel universe?

:D

You're right, SS, it was the one by Hawking. How careless of me. :)

Dave

[H3LL]

I'm crushed.

I was led to believe that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure.

I've been living in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming Of The Great White Handkerchief.

Can I call the Big Bang the Big Sneeze, to fit in with my beliefs?









Sorry, I'm in a silly mood today.