swaha Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 if universe was a pt at the time of bigbang what was outside that pt? what was before that time?
Phi for All Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 ooops. it's point. sorry, dont ban me please.We don't ban people for bad spelling, but we want others to be able to understand what you are saying. Please avoid text speak. This is a great time to practice your English spelling.
Bob_for_short Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 if universe was a pt at the time of bigbang what was outside that pt? what was before that time? Outside this point there was nothing, just empty dark (black) space. Then it was gradually filled with matter.
Mokele Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 It's commonly thought that, prior to the Big Bang, there was nothing. However, recent evidence shows there were actually already 3 Starbucks franchises and a Wal-Mart open within a short drive from the singularity.
swaha Posted July 21, 2009 Author Posted July 21, 2009 how did matter appear then? was it stored somewhere probably as energy? did you mean the point enlarged to our universe? please explain. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedwell again if our universe was a point then where was it?
Klaynos Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 how did matter appear then? was it stored somewhere probably as energy? There are several ideas about this but AFAIK we don't yet know with any degree of certainty. did you mean the point enlarged to our universe? The universe was confined to a singularity (or very close to one) at the moment of the big bang. please explain. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedwell again if our universe was a point then where was it? The point was the universe, that point was everywhere, I believe Athiest described the baloon idea to you recently (I think it was you), the big bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion of space.
Bob_for_short Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 It's commonly thought that, prior to the Big Bang, there was nothing. However, recent evidence shows there were actually already 3 Starbucks franchises and a Wal-Mart open within a short drive from the singularity. That may explain the resulting barion asymmetry!
Airbrush Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 The big bang erased all trace of whatever existed before it. I doubt there was "nothing" before the big bang, but there is no way to prove it. It is hard to imagine what existed then. Something certainly existed before the big bang, the conditions that caused it.
swaha Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 what did u mean by that point was everywhere? a point must be somewhere located in space? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergednobody gave me any ballon idea. dont know what's it.
Klaynos Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 what did u mean by that point was everywhere? a point must be somewhere located in space? No it musn't. You are assuming that the 'point' is a classical point. The universe was compressed into a very very small point, this point contained all space, everything, this then expanded, everything spread out. Take the balloon, you are stood on the surface of an uninflated balloon, it is effectively a point, it is inflated to be 100m across (it's a big balloon), the surface is all that exists, now you ask, "which bit was the original point" the question makes no sense because the whole balloon was.
swaha Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 but the ballon was initially at a point. so where was the universe?
CDizzle Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 There was nothing, just black space with that dust particle. Dust particle then explodes and expands everything and creates planets, universes and stars. Everything is still expanding today.
Airbrush Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 A supermassive white hole? What makes cosmologists so sure the origin of the universe started with a singularity or a tiny point? The big bang could have started expanding from a region of indeterminable size. Think of a gateway thru which the universe passed into this space-time. If you walk thru a doorway, you don't emerge as a tiny atom on the other side.
StringJunky Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 Swaha This is what I understand, although I must state I'm not a physicist It might be easier to understand what has been explained to you if you imagine yourself inside the singularity (looking out) and, therefore, the expanding universe... which you are. Imagining the balloon idea, as if you are on the outside of it (looking in), can give the mistaken impression that there is something outside the balloon (singularity/universe) and that it is expanding inside a larger, external space/volume, which it isn't. The space/volume represented outside the balloon model boundary is intended to be an imaginary, conceptual one and doesn't actually represent anything in a physicist's mind. Space, time and energy only existed within the confines ot the singularity and the inflating universe. The singularity was not inside anything (since it was everything and everywhere) so any ideas about its position, as a very small point, within a real 3D space are meaningless are they not? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA supermassive white hole? What makes cosmologists so sure the origin of the universe started with a singularity or a tiny point? The big bang could have started expanding from a region of indeterminable size. Think of a gateway thru which the universe passed into this space-time. If you walk thru a doorway, you don't emerge as a tiny atom on the other side. Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding. From this observation, he reasoned, that if you reverse the evolutionary process, then everything in the universe must, at some point in the past, have been in the same place at the same time, hence the singularity. I think the idea of a singularity, at the beginning of the universe, is supported by the generally accepted view (amongst mainstream physicists and astronomers) that they do actually exist.... within Blackholes. Why do they take this view and not one like you've suggested, for example? Because the singularity idea fits in best with their data, math and observations.so far.
Klaynos Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 There was nothing, just black space with that dust particle. Dust particle then explodes and expands everything and creates planets, universes and stars. Everything is still expanding today. It wasn't an explosion, there was no black space, the universe the whole thing was confined to a singularity (although singularities mean that something breaks down). This sigularity expanded, not into space, it contains all the space in our universe. The balloon was not at a point, you are stood on the surface of the balloon, you have no concept of looking anywhere else other than the surface of the balloon, there is nothing other than the surface it is all that exists... It's not a great analogy imo but few things are for this kind of physics.
Leader Bee Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 Perhaps this is way off the mark but to get around the head bending idea that something can expand into nothing I have a hypothosis that space is curved and because space could be curved it is no longer expanding into "Whatever is on the other side of the edge of space". Now i'm imagining that it's curved it is "expanding" into itsself and strreeeeeeeeeetching rather than growing, very much like the baloon. Imagine an elastic band at rest. It has X amount of mass and covers X amount of area, now pull on all sides of it and you will expand its area but you have not added any more mass to it, the mass was there to begin with but it still "Expands" but not into nothing, away from itsself instead - it is not expanding into more elastic band. Perhaps the analogy isn't the best because eventually eleastic bands snap when you stretch them too much and tearing space would be beyond the scope of this discussion. It would raise questions like: if there was a tear in space what is outside of that tear and could things leak through it?
swaha Posted July 24, 2009 Author Posted July 24, 2009 if something expanda then it requires space outside. does it mean there is space outside universe also? atleast it must be when it was a point. for a point must be somewhere in space & expand to somewhere in space to occupy a volume.
GutZ Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 I think that rule works within the universe only. outside is unknown. It's nothing. If space expands, how does nothing stop it? I think you could say nothing is not descriptive, no structure or form or anything. I think the hard part to get around is the point, being a point with nothing around it. Like if you draw a black point on a piece of paper. I think maybe that a lot of the confusion comes that we say nothing is the piece of paper but really it's the black dot without the paper, we just need the paper because of how our brain needs structure. "Nothing" is hard to express. correct me if I am wrong with this.
Sisyphus Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 That's correct. There does not need to be anything for the universe to "expand into," because the expansion is not motion. It is simply an increase of distances. 1
Tolmosoff Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 I see our universe like the cylinder in my cars engine. The point as the flash of top dead center. Maybe the volum was always there but no matter to fill it like time and space. The Big Bang was when a previous universe collapst called ( The Big Crunch ) that took all of the previous universe and compressed it into the point of a new creation called Big Bang. I see our universe like the inside of my engine. A four Stroke universe. 1 # Intake = The big crunch, the intake stroke takeing in the previous universe. 2 # Compression = Top dead center ( big bang ) u have power. and expantion of gasses ,expansion of light, gasses, elements of carbon building block for matter. And atom particles that replicate itself. 3 # power = Big bang goes into power stroke to create motion of gravity and ( Expantion of universe ). 4 # Exhaust = unused gasses, heat, creation, carbon and polution at the end of tail pipe. Yes we are the creation from gasses from polution because of the big bang. The volum was always there plus Multiverses for a new universe to fill that cylinder. Next trillion years the big bang will will start all over again and takeing us with it. All old things are done away with to become a new universe cause we are ( In The Twilite Zone ). Think of our universe as the inside cylinder of your car.
Klaynos Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 if something expanda then it requires space outside. does it mean there is space outside universe also? You are applying your everyday experience with something that has no requirement to behave in that way. atleast it must be when it was a point. for a point must be somewhere in space & expand to somewhere in space to occupy a volume. Again applying our in universe every day experience to the universe doesn't work it seems. The universe doesn't have to play by our rules no matter how annoying that may be.
StringJunky Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 If there was :space outside the confines of the singularity/universe then our universe, that we reside in, would have to be a sub-universe within a bigger one, for which there is no evidence and is probably nonsensical from a physicist's point of view anyway. I must admit, being a non-scientist, grasping the concept of nothing was difficult...i don't try and visualise nothing anymore...because there isn't anything to visualise!
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now