Could the big bang still be happening?

[cameron marical]

I know that the title is badly worded, sorry. Is it possible for the big bang to still be happening and that is the cause of the expansion?

 

Also, off topic.

 

Could gravity be a result of a fourth dimension?

 

I know this is kind speculation, but it is more of a question than a speculation. But move if you must.

[GutZ]

I am taking a guess at this but don't take my word for it.

 

I think the big bang is just the name for the event that took place with a specific duration at the begin of the universe. After that it just expansion of space and cooling of matter....I think...

 

As for time creating gravity....I don't think that works out. If you look at relavtivity space definitely has a role. Matter curves space-time. So yeah, it probably does, but not in the way I think you, as in that it's a like a direct consequence. I can't tell you for sure...based on what I know I don't think it's possible, or atleast there is no evidence for it.

[cameron marical]

So can It be that expansion is the result of the Big Bang?

 

Oh, woops.

 

I ment to say fith dimension, not of fourth. Im sorry, my mistake, i must have not been paying attention.

[jackson33]

GutZ and Cameron;

 

Gravity under one the the most accepted BBT WAS one of four forces of the Singularity. Some do say gravity split off, ie allowing for the expansion to begin, but best you read this site;

 

The Inflationary Big Bang Model

 

1- 0 second to 10-43 second. Only God knows or can know what happened during this period of time. We know only that at least 9 dimensions of space existed as what is called singularity. All of the universe-to-be existed as a point of no volume. Time as we know it was created. 2-10-43 second, also known as Planck time. This is the point at which gravity, one of the four unified forces, became separate from the remaining three forces.

3-10-36 second. The strong nuclear force (the force that holds the nuclei of atoms together) separated from the other three unified forces.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bigbang.html

 

Cameron; If they move this to speculation, don't let that discourage you from asking questions or in fact starting of a thread there to begin with. Big Bang is an interesting subject, most if not all of what happened before expansion will never be known or even proved by experiment but looking for answers can lead to unexpected results...

[Royston]

GutZ and Cameron;

 

Gravity under one the the most accepted BBT WAS one of four forces of the Singularity. Some do say gravity split off, ie allowing for the expansion to begin, but best you read this site;

 

The Inflationary Big Bang Model

 

1- 0 second to 10-43 second. Only God knows or can know what happened during this period of time. We know only that at least 9 dimensions of space existed as what is called singularity. All of the universe-to-be existed as a point of no volume. Time as we know it was created. 2-10-43 second, also known as Planck time. This is the point at which gravity, one of the four unified forces, became separate from the remaining three forces.

3-10-36 second. The strong nuclear force (the force that holds the nuclei of atoms together) separated from the other three unified forces.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bigbang.html

 

That quote is a complete mish mash of bits of information arbitrarily picked from different sources and thrown together, with a few bits of misinformed crud thrown in for good measure.

[iNow]

I like the URL address... "god and science dot org." I'll be sure to cite them on my next cosmo paper submission.

 

 

 

Anyway, the site wasn't ANYTHING like I thought it would be. I thought for sure I'd click on to a page with a single sentence... nothing more... stating some simple truth like, "the two are in no way related to one another, now you may as well go out and enjoy your life."

[GutZ]

So can It be that expansion is the result of the Big Bang?

 

 

 

Yeah, as well as being part of it. It's not like the big bang happened, then expansion. Space has been expanding since....(???) to now.

 

 

Oh, woops.

 

I ment to say fith dimension, not of fourth. Im sorry, my mistake, i must have not been paying attention.

 

A dimension is more of a measurement. It's hard to define., in the sense we are talking about but...

 

You know about 2 dimensions(X,y). we are selves are 3 dimensions (x,y,z)

 

A 5ith dimension would have to allow some other measurement. You would have to find it first to link it to gravity.

Edited May 14, 2009 by GutZ

[jackson33]

That quote is a complete mish mash of bits of information arbitrarily picked from different sources and thrown together, with a few bits of misinformed crud thrown in for good measure.

 

Snail, I'll address this to you, but intended for iNow as well;

 

If for no other reason than "I am highly skeptical" of BBT in the first place and where allowed, argue it's integrity. My objective was to encourage the author to pursue her apparent inquisitive mind. She came up with the connection between expansion/gravity on her own and that was the only current listed theory, I could find in short order to make the connection. The four forces, to my knowledge ARE still valid, however gravity as leading the way for expansion is not necessarily acceptable. In any event GutZ another poster, I rather like and young was the only response after several days, so I jumped in offering both 'A' generic scenario.

 

 

iNow; One argument used from probably the mid-1950's, not only from myself but Fred Hoyle (named BBT) and hundreds of others in those days was the connection of religion and astrophysics/cosmology/astronomy was the Catholic connection or if you prefer the religious community.

----------------------

According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time. This startling idea first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. The theory, accepted by nearly all astronomers today, was a radical departure from scientific orthodoxy in the 1930s. Many astronomers at the time were still uncomfortable with the idea that the universe is expanding. That the entire observable universe of galaxies began with a bang seemed preposterous.

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html

--------------------

 

Since a God was instrumental in the explanation for the original theory, I hardly understand your contempt for any religion trying to maintain that connection. As said above, whether it comes from a religious source or not it does offer a connection for Gravity/Expansion, list many facts including the four forces that are valid under the last 10 or 20 different current models being explored. What is known, is we DON'T KNOW (pre bang conditions or have a science to explain), gravity could well have played a role in the so called expansion or that gravity itself was non existent and was another yet determined energy was....

 

Cameron; Wish you had placed this topic, under 'alternatives' and several other posters who seem to be curious about or exploring space/science. Think you would have received several comments intended for you, not a series of post opposed to me....

[iNow]

iNow; One argument used from probably the mid-1950's, not only from myself but Fred Hoyle (named BBT) and hundreds of others in those days was the connection of religion and astrophysics/cosmology/astronomy was the Catholic connection or if you prefer the religious community.

It's still a terrible way to do science. Remember in which forum you are posting. My criticism of your source remains.

[cameron marical]

My objective was to encourage the author to pursue her apparent inquisitive mind. She came up with the connection between expansion/gravity on her own

 

He.

[timo]

I know that the title is badly worded, sorry. Is it possible for the big bang to still be happening and that is the cause of the expansion?

If you take the standard model of cosmology and tune back the common time parameter then at some finite point you will find that the distances between all points in space become zero. You usually call this point or the times shortly after it (say till the the formation of the first elements) Big Bang. Therefore, the answer is "no" by definition of the term.

 

Could gravity be a result of a fifth dimension?

It could be a lot, as soon as you leave mainstream science. Anything, if you just ignore common meaning of terms. There is no fifth dimension in the most generally accepted theory of gravitation (General Relativity) so there the answer is "no". Theories with additional dimensions that I met (admittedly only one rather general one) do not consider the additional dimension as a cause for gravity. In fact, it is probably more common to make the dimensions so small that there is no difference to be seen in the currently-observed (energy-)regime. I do not know exactly to what extent you can embed 4D spacetime in a higher-dimensional flat space (particularly not if 5 dimensions are sufficient). But having a mathematical apparatus that does not require you to do so is usually considered as a very strong point of General Relativity, I think.

 

So can It be that expansion is the result of the Big Bang?

If you believe that the past dictates the future and you mean current expansion then it is probably a "yes" but with a lot of caveats. Too many to list them all; make your own thoughts about to what extent you believe a point found by extrapolation of a physical model which predicts the very same physical model not to work in this point to exist, or what something being the result of something else means.