initial state of the universe ?

[1123581321]

Hi, i was wondering how 'space' did not exist before the big bang, at the point where the universe is thought/known to have been just a microscopic singularity...

 

because, then how did the singularity itself exist, or how was it able to be present - within existence - if there was nothing to exist in...

 

because if it contained anything in the known universe, that is all of 'physical' reality, then how could there there be nothing outside of it..

 

hasnt it obviously expanded into a void of some sort, which is 'physical space' - to allow something 'physical' to exist and dynamically evolve in it..

 

because, if you, for arguments sake, went outside or beyond the universe itself, you arent just going to cease to exist or just dissappear are you, because wouldn't you just be merely leaving the universe, but still be in (dimensional) space itself..

 

 

i guess that i just dont understand how there can literally be no 'physical' space, as wouldnt that kind of defy existence in a matter of speaking - not getting off the topic too much..

[granpa]

space doesnt 'exist'.

space is a property of that which does 'exist'

 

that which exists (or rather happens) is 'events'.

'events' are the indivisible 'atoms' of existence

Edited December 19, 2010 by granpa

[1123581321]

ok, but then, if there was apparently nothing outside the singularity, then how could the singlarity evolve or 'expand' into the universe which is present...?

 

how could existence evolve or expand into non-existence..

Edited December 20, 2010 by 1123581321

[lemur]

This may be controversial to some, but I believe space can best be described as the ability for entities to move relative to each other. In physical matter, I believe this ability is facilitated by different levels of "tightness" of different types of force-fields. E.g. if gravitational force was not weaker/looser than the electrostatic force that keeps the electrons in orbit around the protons, then the atom would not be able to move relative to other atoms. The atoms would be held together as tightly as the electrons are held to the protons. The same could be said of the nuclear force holding the protons together versus the electrostatic force. If the electrons were attracted to the protons as strongly as the protons are attracted to each other, the atom's volume would be no greater than that of its nucleus, right?

 

Based on this reasoning, I believe it makes sense to say that if the universe emerged from an initial singular point, all its forces must have extended concentrically from the same center (this may be a naive assumption, I'm not sure). So space would have begun to exist as the singular point began fragmenting/dividing into multiple points/fields. In that way, the two or more "daughter-singularities" would have been governed by the interactions of force between/among them and would have moved relative to each other according to the amount of freedom afforded them by their weakest attractive force. I suspect no attractive force, including gravity, would have been weak enough at that level of density to permit much if any separation, so I think that energy preceded space. Once the particles moved with enough energy/force/power to work their way beyond their tightest attractive force (strong nuclear?), then I think they would have begun to fission, resulting in more powerful repulsion, which would have eventually allowed them to divide their electrostatic field, with gravity remaining between them. The fission, btw, would have resulted in two distinct nuclei repelling away from each other within a common electrostatic field at first, I think.

 

This is a fairly naive picture based on the logic of decreasing force-strength. Maybe there are reasons why the forces would behave differently at extreme pressure/density or why some wouldn't even be present or different ones altogether would have dominated. I am interested to hear what is blatantly wrong with this idea, since I have been told it differs from standard ideas about the big bang. Thanks in advance for constructive criticism instead of sweeping insults of crackpottery just because I dare to apply amateur understanding of physics to such a popular hotly contested topic as the initial moments of the big bang.