# What created the Big Bang?



## Ben8 (Jul 5, 2013)

I'm not up to date with hypothesis and theories surrounding the creation of the Big Bang (assuming the B.B is correct). Does anyone know any popular beliefs, scientifically, how the Big Bang (or whatever you believe) came to be?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

My parents.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Joking aside, one theory I heard about said that maybe the Universe is in an eternal cycle of expanding and collapsing, and the "big bang" is merely one of those expansions.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> Joking aside, one theory I heard about said that maybe the Universe is in an eternal cycle of expanding and collapsing, and the "big bang" is merely one of those expansions.


How did that get started?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> How did that get started?


Haven't gotten that far yet, but the equations do suggest that's a very likely possibility. Scientists think the universe will contonue to expand until it collapses in on itself, once again becoming a very small, very dense area.


----------



## KneeSeekerArrow (Jan 8, 2012)

chuck lorre


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

I think you should question everything. So assuming the BB is correct is your first mistake. Don't accept the theory of just any scientist or some guru, find out yourself.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

From a singularity. 

From Wikipedia:

According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago,[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] which is thus considered the age of the universe.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP] At this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed. The majority of atoms that were produced by the Big Bang are hydrogen, along with helium and traces of lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

It's currently the most widely accepted scientific theory of how our universe came into being.

But, M-theory cites that the universe is one among many... And along with string theory... There's much fun to be had.


----------



## bluekitdon (Dec 19, 2012)

Always funny to me how scientific observations always seem to sound a lot like a little book written thousands of years ago called the Bible. Genesis 1 ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.'. Sounds like that theory would look an awful lot like the big bang theory to me.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

There's this suggestion that certain string theorists have of two dimensions that are like two slices of cheese (not any of our familiar three dimensions) lying parallel with one another with a gap in between contacted each other due to their rippling (maybe from the increased gravitational pull a singularity provides). So it seems the Big Bang was a collision between different dimensions. I have my own little theory about how the universe began expanding but it's a secret for now.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

bluekitdon said:


> Always funny to me how scientific observations always seem to sound a lot like a little book written thousands of years ago called the Bible. Genesis 1 ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.'. Sounds like that theory would look an awful lot like the big bang theory to me.


The thing with vague description words is that you could easily interpret them to mean_ pretty much anything.

_I think Hinduism had it pretty close, too. 

"With its cyclical notion of time, Hinduism teaches that the material world is created not once but repeatedly, time and time again. Additionally, this universe is considered to be one of many, all enclosed "like innumerable bubbles floating in space."

I think I saw a lecture given by Michio Kaku that sounded eerily like that about string theory, and physics. :tongue: I think the lecture was from floatinguniversity.com

Hinduism is probably one of the rare religions that could coincide with science, and, indeed, there are Atheistic sects of Hinduism as well.


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

Word Dispenser said:


> Hinduism is probably one of the rare religions that could coincide with science, and, indeed, there are Atheistic sects of Hinduism as well.


Interesting. I know a few Hindus. Do you have any links or sources I could look at? That sounds fascinating.

@ the OP, there are lots of different theories floating around ranging from quasi-benevolent deities to string theory's colliding dimensions. The way you phrased the question, this could easily turn into an interesting "God of the Gaps" discussion or go a number of different directions.

I'm personally a fan of the "universe on the back of a giant supernatural turtle swimming through the void" theory. I get weird looks from people at the super market and I don't piss off any cosmologists (or all of them-you can't really ever tell with people).


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> From a singularity.
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> ...


Where did the singularity come from?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Where did the singularity come from?


Ah, I will paste from Wikipedia again:

The *initial singularity* was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought[SUP][_according to whom?_][/SUP] to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly explode in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.[SUP][1][/SUP]


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

absentminded said:


> Interesting. I know a few Hindus. Do you have any links or sources I could look at? That sounds fascinating.
> 
> @ the OP, there are lots of different theories floating around ranging from quasi-benevolent deities to string theory's colliding dimensions. The way you phrased the question, this could easily turn into an interesting "God of the Gaps" discussion or go a number of different directions.
> 
> I'm personally a fan of the "universe on the back of a giant supernatural turtle swimming through the void" theory. I get weird looks from people at the super market and I don't piss off any cosmologists (or all of them-you can't really ever tell with people).


You mean that religion what the great Preacher Pratchett teaches? He likes to add humour to his almighty, wise doctrines, but they are nonetheless profound. 

As for Hinduism, most of what I've read comes from Wikipedia, actually, so I don't have any particular site, or lecture that sits out in my mind as being telltale. You could easily google it, too.

But, just to make your search easier: Atheism in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have always found Hinduism to be quite fascinating, colourful, and optimistic, in terms of religion _and _philosophy. Their vedas are quite literally thousands of years old, and still used for profound philosophical questions.

Vedas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

Word Dispenser said:


> You mean that religion what the great Preacher Pratchett teaches? He likes to add humour to his almighty, wise doctrines, but they are nonetheless profound.


Well, it's interesting to me that so many scientists complain about "God of the Gaps" systems of reasoning. Is there any difference between a Gap-Dwelling Deity and a theory that has yet to be disproved? People have the opportunity to try and understand the world with the time they're given and people drawing a religious conclusion aren't always acting irrationally when their level of understanding/reasoning capacity is considered.

Moreover, science can't ever see definitely beyond certain boundaries. All our sophisticated machinery is still, after all, inside Plato's cave. Most scientists agree that it would be impossible to test the validity of speculations about pre-Big Band existence without bringing to bear an experimental energy on the same scale as the Big Bang itself.

People are just confusing by nature.



> As for Hinduism, most of what I've read comes from Wikipedia, actually, so I don't have any particular site, or lecture that sits out in my mind as being telltale. You could easily google it, too.


Bummer. Thanks, though. roud:


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> Ah, I will paste from Wikipedia again:
> 
> The *initial singularity* was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought[SUP][_according to whom?_][/SUP] to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly explode in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.[SUP][1][/SUP]


That...didn't explain where it came from.


----------



## Ben8 (Jul 5, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> The thing with vague description words is that you could easily interpret them to mean_ pretty much anything.
> 
> _I think Hinduism had it pretty close, too.
> 
> ...


The sheer fact that you said Michio Kaku's name denoted a thanks.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> That...didn't explain where it came from.


Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry, I thought you were wondering what sources I was using, since I mentioned the singularity without a source. :kitteh:

There are many theories on how such a singularity was formed, but none as of yet I would rely upon with any certainty.

And since the direction of your question is heading in a religious direction...

For now, I'll just say that _Brahman_ did it. :wink:

@Ben8 - I thank your thanks. And I thank your 8. 8 is my lucky number.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry, I thought you were wondering what sources I was using, since I mentioned the singularity without a source. :kitteh:
> 
> There are many theories on how such a singularity was formed, but none as of yet I would rely upon with any certainty.
> 
> ...


Oh, you're no fun.


----------



## Ben8 (Jul 5, 2013)

absentminded said:


> Interesting. I know a few Hindus. Do you have any links or sources I could look at? That sounds fascinating.
> 
> @ the OP, there are lots of different theories floating around ranging from quasi-benevolent deities to string theory's colliding dimensions. The way you phrased the question, this could easily turn into an interesting "God of the Gaps" discussion or go a number of different directions.
> 
> I'm personally a fan of the "universe on the back of a giant supernatural turtle swimming through the void" theory. I get weird looks from people at the super market and I don't piss off any cosmologists (or all of them-you can't really ever tell with people).


Assuming the BB is accurate, do you think it reinforces the Multiverse theory, or do you think it signifies the expansion and contraction of the universe? And one question I can't seem to understand is, if the universe is expanding in all directions(due to Hubble's constant), what is it expanding upon? Even if you believe in parallel universes, what exactly is between them? I guess I just don't grasp expansion if there isn't an existing outside for it to expand upon.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Oh, you're no fun.


I enjoy me.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Ben8 said:


> Assuming the BB is accurate, do you think it reinforces the Multiverse theory, or do you think it signifies the expansion and contraction of the universe? And one question I can't seem to understand is, if the universe is expanding in all directions(due to Hubble's constant), what is it expanding upon? Even if you believe in parallel universes, what exactly is between them? I guess I just don't grasp expansion if there isn't an existing outside for it to expand upon.


I think it actually _creates _the outside space as it expands... That'd be my _guess_. And universes don't necessarily have to exist side by side. Maybe they could collide, and create something like a singularity.

Or they could be parallel, or somehow exist on an interlinking chain of something incomprehensible to us at this time.


----------



## Orange Fusion (Nov 16, 2013)

An infinite number of monkeys.


----------



## Ben8 (Jul 5, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> I think it actually _creates _the outside space as it expands... That'd be my _guess_. And universes don't necessarily have to exist side by side. Maybe they could collide, and create something like a singularity.
> 
> Or they could be parallel, or somehow exist on an interlinking chain of something incomprehensible to us at this time.


If something expands, it has to have something in relation to the expansion as a whole. If a balloon expands, you can say it's expanding because of the diameter of the balloon compared to everything around you in the world. While you can be inside the balloon and say it is expanding because the volume is increasing around you, but ultimately there has to be room for it to expand, which leaves the question, "What is that room?"


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Ben8 said:


> If something expands, it has to have something in relation to the expansion as a whole. If a balloon expands, you can say it's expanding because of the diameter of the balloon compared to everything around you in the world. While you can be inside the balloon and say it is expanding because the volume is increasing around you, but ultimately there has to be room for it to expand, which leaves the question, "What is that room?"


Well, I think of that 'room' as being of a more flexible material than mere walls that we might see everyday. There is no true 'edge' as we know it, methinks.

So when the universe pushes against the 'walls', or perhaps more accurately 'the non-edge', it gives way and conforms to the universe's expansion, consequently, it all becomes bigger. 

The theory is, afterall, that what is _around _the universe is nothing, so it follows that the universe's expansion itself created the space within the nothing, and it continues to 'grow'. Although it doesn't 'expand' as originally predicted.

I don't think it can be understood in a microcosmic example such as in everyday life-- Depending on the magnitude or smallness of what you're talking about, the physics doesn't always stay the same. It can surprise you.

But, I am a mere laymen. I see these theories through the lens of imagination rather than equation. So I could be more than wrong.


----------



## Ben8 (Jul 5, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, I think of that 'room' as being of a more flexible material than mere walls that we might see everyday. There is no true 'edge' as we know it, methinks.
> 
> So when the universe pushes against the 'walls', or perhaps more accurately 'the non-edge', it gives way and conforms to the universe's expansion, consequently, it all becomes bigger.
> 
> ...


You articulated it well with it being a flexible material. However, you pronounced that nothing is past the universe (for arguments sake being the only universe). Is nothingness impossible? Or can our minds not know nothingness because we have never experienced it? I feel like there can't be a nothingness because everything is something.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Ben8 said:


> You articulated it well with it being a flexible material. However, you pronounced that nothing is past the universe (for arguments sake being the only universe). Is nothingness impossible? Or can our minds not know nothingness because we have never experienced it? I feel like there can't be a nothingness because everything is something.


Well, it's difficult to comprehend on an applicable level to human experience. It's an abstract concept, so you have to treat the subject matter as such. 

Similar to the abstract concepts in mathematics-- You're not going to be able to come up with a vision for what '1' looks like, unless you have '1' _of _something. Otherwise, '1' is only meaningful insofar that it is a number, a measurement, an idea.

We chose '1' to represent that idea, along with the word 'one'. But, would you be able to explain that _meaning_ visually?

There's plenty of things that we have never experienced. We haven't experienced a black hole, or a brown dwarf, or a supernova, but we know that these things, within our reasonable estimates and calculations_ , do _exist. We can get photographs of them, even if we haven't experienced them.

These things were not always material that was within the realm of even images, or representational images, however, but we still knew they were there. 

As to your question of the mind: Our minds are surprisingly versatile creatures of their own, I think. You can only _not _know, until you know. Is there something beyond comprehensible grasp of the human mind? Perhaps. There are certain meanings that cannot be visualized, as I said earlier. But, I think that our _potential _for understanding is limitless.


----------



## Ben8 (Jul 5, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, it's difficult to comprehend on an applicable level to human experience. It's an abstract concept, so you have to treat the subject matter as such.
> 
> Similar to the abstract concepts in mathematics-- You're not going to be able to come up with a vision for what '1' looks like, unless you have '1' _of _something. Otherwise, '1' is only meaningful insofar that it is a number, a measurement, an idea.
> 
> ...


Well said, but I think that our potential for understanding is limited because we use language as a tool. We can't tell someone who has never seen before what the color red is. We can say, "hot" or, "exciting", but that would sound silly to someone who has never seen it. Even though we, as humans, can think abstractly to a degree, we still use words in our minds to grasp it. We use experiences (which are limited in its own area) for comparison. Like you said, we can understand (assuming that we can) black holes to a small degree without experiencing one, but we have limited experiences to aid our abstract thinking. In that, experiences are limited to pre destination (if you believe that) or nature. There are so many limiting factors, I doubt limitless things exist. Of course this is all speculation, but it begs these kinds of questions. I feel that we are limited because truth is subjective. I feel as though we'll never know truth, so we'll never know any kind of non limit or limit, so it's fair to say we have a limit on achievement, but it's also fair to say we don't have a limit. That point was a fail. Regardless, you see where I'm going with this. Even if a God comes down and is all like, "kk, so this is how it is...(insert explanation of everything, making perfect sense)", that will always raise questions on..validity, process, design, and reasoning. Every answer gives us two more questions. This attempt at understanding is paradoxical and futile, but I really want to know. Alas, I have digressed.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Ben8 said:


> Well said, but I think that our potential for understanding is limited because we use language as a tool. We can't tell someone who has never seen before what the color red is. We can say, "hot" or, "exciting", but that would sound silly to someone who has never seen it. Even though we, as humans, can think abstractly to a degree, we still use words in our minds to grasp it. We use experiences (which are limited in its own area) for comparison. Like you said, we can understand (assuming that we can) black holes to a small degree without experiencing one, but we have limited experiences to aid our abstract thinking. In that, experiences are limited to pre destination (if you believe that) or nature. There are so many limiting factors, I doubt limitless things exist. Of course this is all speculation, but it begs these kinds of questions. I feel that we are limited because truth is subjective. I feel as though we'll never know truth, so we'll never know any kind of non limit or limit, so it's fair to say we have a limit on achievement, but it's also fair to say we don't have a limit. That point was a fail. Regardless, you see where I'm going with this. Even if a God comes down and is all like, "kk, so this is how it is...(insert explanation of everything, making perfect sense)", that will always raise questions on..validity, process, design, and reasoning. Every answer gives us two more questions. This attempt at understanding is paradoxical and futile, but I really want to know. Alas, I have digressed.


Yes, we do use language, but interestingly, it has been shown that the way our brains comprehend information doesn't really use much language at all, until it needs to be _communicated_.

So, perhaps our limitation is in communicating our subjective experiences into meaning that other people could understand identically. Of course, _that _seems impossible. 

Because they can't get inside your head, they can't experience what you _have _experienced, in order to become the person you are, to comprehend the material the way you have, and presently _do.

_But_, _I'd like to think that, maybe in a couple of centuries, some kind of transference, or interfacing of human minds will be possible. And perhaps other ways of interpreting and experiencing information, that will, perhaps violently, shake the foundations of what we understand perception to be.

I agree with you, that yes. There's always more to know. There will never be a perfect understanding of absolutely everything occurring. At least not until we become so advanced as to be God-like to those as primitive as we. But, honestly? I hope that it _isn't ever _possible to know everything. The seeking of information is as wonderful, perhaps moreso, than the understanding.


----------



## seiei (Jul 21, 2013)

If cause and effect hinge upon the existence of time and space, and the big bang marks the beginning or rather creation of time, there is no such thing as "before" the big bang, how could anything "create" or "cause" it.


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

Ben8 said:


> Assuming the BB is accurate, do you think it reinforces the Multiverse theory, or do you think it signifies the expansion and contraction of the universe? And one question I can't seem to understand is, if the universe is expanding in all directions(due to Hubble's constant), what is it expanding upon? Even if you believe in parallel universes, what exactly is between them? I guess I just don't grasp expansion if there isn't an existing outside for it to expand upon.


Hard to say.

All the different theories break down about 5-50 seconds before the actual Big Bang and the equations start asymptotically diverging in weird ways (at least, that's how it was explained to me).

Furthermore, because all of our reference frames are within the universe and governed by its physics, it's more or less impossible to observe or study empirically anything outside of it. If you travel an infinite amount of time at any speed, you will always arrive at your starting point.

Now, because the underlying structure of reality has the energy density necessary to fuel the big bang, we would need to have access to big bang scale energy output to actually study anything outside the universe. The same way there are certain energy requirements for observing various quantum mechanical interactions (W boson, Z boson, Higgs, etc.)

So what has to happen, is mathematical physicists have to produce a theory that describes extra-universal space AND makes a prediction about intra-universal space that other theories do not that can be measured at accessible energy levels. String theory is the only theory left standing that comes close, but lots of physicists are loosing hope for it because, well...


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

seiei said:


> If cause and effect hinge upon the existence of time and space, and the big bang marks the beginning or rather creation of time, there is no such thing as "before" the big bang, how could anything "create" or "cause" it.


Well either something caused the Big Bang or something came from nothing.


----------



## seiei (Jul 21, 2013)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Well either something caused the Big Bang or something came from nothing.


No. There are always quantum fields from which fluctuations arise. It's been demonstrated that 'something' arises from this supposed 'nothing' you speak of in quantum mechanics. I've no interest in your ulterior agenda of promoting the existence of a creator god through debate, find another candidate to argue with.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

seiei said:


> No. There are always quantum fields from which fluctuations arise. It's been demonstrated that 'something' arises from this supposed 'nothing' you speak of in quantum mechanics. I've no interest in your ulterior agenda of promoting the existence of a creator god through debate, find another candidate to argue with.


That's not nothing.


----------



## seiei (Jul 21, 2013)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> That's not nothing.


Exactly.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

seiei said:


> Exactly.


So once again we're back at the question of how it came into existence.


----------



## Ben8 (Jul 5, 2013)

absentminded said:


> Hard to say.
> 
> All the different theories break down about 5-50 seconds before the actual Big Bang and the equations start asymptotically diverging in weird ways (at least, that's how it was explained to me).
> 
> ...


That picture is epic. That was always my thoughts exactly. I realize string theory strengthens the idea of a multiverse, but it doesn't really.....produce anything in and of itself. Going back to your answer, you're basically saying that we only know the laws that govern our universe, so it appears impossible to look at things outside of it, right? Also, I was thinking that, to debunk the idea of constant universal collapse and expansion, if the universe is constantly expanding faster and faster, wouldn't that not be true? I feel like the universe would have to gradually slow down for there to be a collapse. I mean, why would the universe suddenly stop expanding?


----------



## Ben8 (Jul 5, 2013)

seiei said:


> No. There are always quantum fields from which fluctuations arise. It's been demonstrated that 'something' arises from this supposed 'nothing' you speak of in quantum mechanics. I've no interest in your ulterior agenda of promoting the existence of a creator god through debate, find another candidate to argue with.


I'll research this more later, but can you explain quantum fields?


----------



## SirDave (Sep 1, 2012)

bluekitdon said:


> Always funny to me how scientific observations always seem to sound a lot like a little book written thousands of years ago called the Bible. Genesis 1 ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.'. Sounds like that theory would look an awful lot like the big bang theory to me.


Cosmologists, astrophysicists, physivists, astronomers have - with cyclotron particle accelerators and colliders and mathematics pushed back the chronology of the early universe to 10–43 (10 to the minus 43r -power; finding the square root of that ten-seconds 43-times) of a second after the Big Bang, a very very small quantity of chronological time.

That much is known and has been verified by actual measurements.


----------



## Becker (Oct 19, 2013)

It's disappointing the lack of understanding we have with the universe, there is so much unknown to us and so little proof for all the theories we have created. We may never know what created the universe, but until then...here's to the unknown.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Someone insulted Chuck Norris' beard.


----------



## Killbain (Jan 5, 2012)

The fact is current knowledge and technology is not good enough to identify how the "Big Bang" happened or if it happened at all. Much like only 400 years ago when we did not have the knowledge to understand that the earth was not in fact the centre of anything, then the telescope came along and in the right hands, Galileo's, our perception fundamentaly altered.

The blind faith mongers of the time, the catholic church threatened and and sentenced Galileo for stating something we now do not even question. Luckily these lunatics do not hold such power any more, at least in Western countries and for that we should be grateful indeed.

That is the difference between rational thinkers and intellectual infants. Rationalists do not jump to far fetched conclusions but look at evidence. Where none exists, we are capable of saying, "At present, we do not know" and we await evidence that will confirm or refute any hypothesis....whether it be a scientific theory or mythological fantasy.

In terms of the big bang it is quite reasonable to theorise that based upon red shift measurement, that objects in space are moving apart.....the universe is apparently expanding. Ergo it can be postulated that at one time it must have been smaller, perhaps a singularity.......hence big bang. But we used to think the Sun orbited the Earth, so perception can change.

But it should be based on evidence. Not childish mumbo-jumbo.


----------



## SA1988 (May 25, 2012)

Reeeeeeeeeally hard to explain everything I want to say.

So I'll just say...

'Multiverse theory'

And I shall recommend the book, '_The Cosmic Landscape_', by Leonard Susskind, who I think is a String Theorist at Stanford University.


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

Ben8 said:


> That picture is epic. That was always my thoughts exactly. I realize string theory strengthens the idea of a multiverse, but it doesn't really.....produce anything in and of itself. Going back to your answer, you're basically saying that we only know the laws that govern our universe, so it appears impossible to look at things outside of it, right? Also, I was thinking that, to debunk the idea of constant universal collapse and expansion, if the universe is constantly expanding faster and faster, wouldn't that not be true? I feel like the universe would have to gradually slow down for there to be a collapse. I mean, why would the universe suddenly stop expanding?


Maybe stretching particles of space-time collide with the ether? I don't know honestly. I'm not exactly an expert.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Ben8 said:


> I'm not up to date with hypothesis and theories surrounding the creation of the Big Bang (assuming the B.B is correct). Does anyone know any popular beliefs, scientifically, how the Big Bang (or whatever you believe) came to be?


First of all, it's questionable that spacetime singularities like that at the Big Bang exist at all. Secondly, it makes no sense to ask how such a thing came to be since nobody even knows what it is. Thirdly, there's the issue of there being any notion of time "before the big bang" (kind of like asking what's north of the north pole).



Diligent Procrastinator said:


> Haven't gotten that far yet, but the equations do suggest that's a very likely possibility. Scientists think the universe will contonue to expand until it collapses in on itself, once again becoming a very small, very dense area.


All of the current data seems to suggest otherwise, i.e. that the universe will continue to expand forever.



Ben8 said:


> Assuming the BB is accurate, do you think it reinforces the Multiverse theory, or do you think it signifies the expansion and contraction of the universe? And one question I can't seem to understand is, if the universe is expanding in all directions(due to Hubble's constant), what is it expanding upon? Even if you believe in parallel universes, what exactly is between them? I guess I just don't grasp expansion if there isn't an existing outside for it to expand upon.





Word Dispenser said:


> I think it actually creates the outside space as it expands... That'd be my guess. And universes don't necessarily have to exist side by side. Maybe they could collide, and create something like a singularity.
> 
> Or they could be parallel, or somehow exist on an interlinking chain of something incomprehensible to us at this time.


That's what gets pretty much everyone tripped up. The universe isn't a thing embedded in a higher-dimensional "background" space which it expands in. The expansion of the universe has to do with the increasing distances between any two events in space.

In differential geometry (the branch of mathematics that deals with spaces without "prejudicing" the geometry of space-time beforehand) there's a mathematical entity called the metric tensor which sort of describes the distance relationships between any two events in spacetime. The special thing about the metric tensor is that it can be defined entirely without reference to any kind of background space. Indeed, this is true of all tensor fields, which are mathematical objects that are used to describe any sort of physical field.

Hence, all the laws of physics can be formulated in a way that makes no reference to a background space and we can cut out such a thing from any physical theory. What this implies is that the universe actually isn't expanding "into" anything at all.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Ben8 said:


> If something expands, it has to have something in relation to the expansion as a whole. If a balloon expands, you can say it's expanding because of the diameter of the balloon compared to everything around you in the world. While you can be inside the balloon and say it is expanding because the volume is increasing around you, but ultimately there has to be room for it to expand, which leaves the question, "What is that room?"


The balloon analogy can be misleading. To make it more accurate, we are not inside the balloon. There is nothing inside the balloon nor is there anything outside of it. Space is the surface of the balloon itself. We are two dimensional beings living in the surface, not its interior.

The expansion of space works sort of like this. If you take two points on the balloon and draw a line between them, the line will get longer as the balloon expands.


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Well either something caused the Big Bang *or something came from nothing.*


That explanation doesn't sit well with our current scientific paradigm. The consequences of such evokes goofy beginnings, and no one wants to hear that. So let's just leave it at some quantum field shit or some other convoluted theory explained by a scientist that doesn't know shit either but adds some fancy name to it and calls it scientific.


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

Ben8 said:


> Assuming the BB is accurate, do you think it reinforces the Multiverse theory, or do you think it signifies the expansion and contraction of the universe? And one question I can't seem to understand is, if the universe is expanding in all directions(due to Hubble's constant), what is it expanding upon? Even if you believe in parallel universes, what exactly is between them? I guess I just don't grasp expansion if there isn't an existing outside for it to expand upon.


Have you read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene? If it is continuing to expand and losing the gravitational pull in all directions then it may not contract and continue for an eternity in this expansion unless somehow dark matter can explain how it will all come back together. Some where I read that at some point we (if we still exist at this point) will not be able to see stars in the sky due to the accelerated rate that the Universe is expanding ("Accelerating Universe").


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

I like the String Theory.


----------



## saksham (Aug 27, 2013)

have u heard of the M-theory??? it's the next step of the string theory...it talks about multi-universes and says dat when these xtremely thin, dimensional universes collide wid each other(because of the various movements by their layers).... ITS THE BIG BANG!!!


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

You should watch Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking, you'd love it! It's a discovery channel series I just bought and watched in a day. It was amazing.

According to Stephen Hawking there are two theories on how the universe will end:

1. *The Big Crunch*: Dark Energy is the mysterious force that is driving the expansion of the universe. If it begins to slow, then gravity will start to pull all the matter of the universe together into a super dense black hole.

2. *The Big Chill*: If Dark Energy doesn't slow, then Hawking thinks it will just continue to expand until all matter is too far apart and the universe is a cold, dark place.

Hawkins thinks # 2 will happen. Basically, the destiny of the universe depends on which force wins, dark matter or gravity.

Scientists think that Dark matter played a significant role in the Big Bang but since they don't understand much about dark matter they don't know exactly what role that was.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Psychosmurf said:


> First of all, it's questionable that spacetime singularities like that at the Big Bang exist at all. Secondly, it makes no sense to ask how such a thing came to be since nobody even knows what it is. Thirdly, there's the issue of there being any notion of time "before the big bang" (kind of like asking what's north of the north pole).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, this was how I intuitively understood it. In my mind, the universe _is _the 'background space', and it's growing, and _that _is how it is understood to be expanding. Which means that it doesn't have any limits. There's nothing around it, really, not even space, or 'nothingness' as we might comprehend as nothing. It's not nothing, and it's not anything. :kitteh:

If that makes any sense.

It sounds like you have more of an understanding of the equations and mathematical concepts than I.


----------



## Bipedal P 314 (Dec 10, 2011)

All in Twilight said:


> I think you should question everything. So assuming the BB is correct is your first mistake. Don't accept the theory of just any scientist or some guru, find out yourself.


What's there to assume? Astronomical observations show that galaxies are moving away from each other, therefor the universe is expanding. That means that the universe used to be smaller than it currently is and it will get larger as time passes. Knowing that the only conclusion one can draw is that at some point the expansion had to begin. The Big Bang theory is the only explanation that accounts for the observable facts in the universe.

The WMAP images, Edwin Hubble's observations, the astronomical data collected over the course of the last 100 years all support the Big Bang. The data is all there.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

BiPedalP314 said:


> What's there to assume? Astronomical observations show that galaxies are moving away from each other, therefor the universe is expanding. That means that the universe used to be smaller than it currently is and it will get larger as time passes. Knowing that the only conclusion one can draw is that at some point the expansion had to begin. The Big Bang theory is the only explanation that accounts for the observable facts in the universe.
> 
> The WMAP images, Edwin Hubble's observations, the astronomical data collected over the course of the last 100 years all support the Big Bang. The data is all there.


You can't create or destroy matter or energy: first law of thermodynamics. This means that you can't create something out of nothing. The big bang theory can (possibility based on what we are able to perceive and comprehend) explain the evolution of the universe but not its beginning. (See problem OP)


----------



## Bipedal P 314 (Dec 10, 2011)

All in Twilight said:


> You can't create or destroy matter or energy: first law of thermodynamics. This means that you can't create something out of nothing. The big bang theory can (possibility based on what we are able to perceive and comprehend) explain the evolution of the universe but not its beginning. (See problem OP)


The original post is actually irrelevant to this case as the Big Bang is an explanation of the current observable facts. It's not claiming to explain the origin of the universe.

You argued that 'you can't just assume the Big Bang is correct' - the evidence clearly demonstrates that the Big Bang is correct in what it sought to describe. Saying that 'it doesn't tell us something it never sought to tell us in the first place' doesn't make it incorrect, you're just expecting an answer it never claimed to have.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

BiPedalP314 said:


> The original post is actually irrelevant to this case as the Big Bang is an explanation of the current observable facts. It's not claiming to explain the origin of the universe.
> 
> You argued that 'you can't just assume the Big Bang is correct' - the evidence clearly demonstrates that the Big Bang is correct in what it sought to describe. Saying that 'it doesn't tell us something it never sought to tell us in the first place' doesn't make it incorrect, you're just expecting an answer it never claimed to have.


Good for you.


----------



## Bipedal P 314 (Dec 10, 2011)

All in Twilight said:


> Good for you.


Correcting idiocy is good for everyone.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

BiPedalP314 said:


> Correcting idiocy is good for everyone.


Fucking hell, get a life man. Every time I end up having these pointless discussions with you. There are many acclaimed scientists who believe the BBT is incorrect. Now stop stalking me and find yourself a sweetheart instead, there is a reason why you're single and all this ^ is a reason why.


----------



## Bipedal P 314 (Dec 10, 2011)

All in Twilight said:


> Now stop stalking me and find yourself a sweetheart instead, there is a reason why you're single and all this ^ is a reason why.


 Stalking you? Your post was on the first page of a topic I thought might be interesting. Get over yourself.


----------

