Does the idea of a "big bang" make any sense?

[Strange]

But wasn't the Big Bang believed to have originated with matter condensed to a single point that was infinitely small and infinitely dense?

Not really, no.

 

You can continue to wind the model back and, not surprisingly, it will take you to these infinities. As with the singularities in the center of a black hole, this seems more likely to indicate that we are taking the relevant theory beyond its domain. A theory of quantum gravity, for example, might give a different answer.

 

I doubt many people think a point of infinite density represents a physical reality.

[WWLabRat]

But with our current understandings in math and physics, it does trace everything back to a single point. Until our scientific understanding and knowledge increases this is the current model that we observe the universe under.

 

The only reason that "many people" may not think of a such a dense universe as being a physical reality is that it's hard for people to imagine what it would look/be like.

[Ophiolite]

But with our current understandings in math and physics, it does trace everything back to a single point. Until our scientific understanding and knowledge increases this is the current model that we observe the universe under.

 

The only reason that "many people" may not think of a such a dense universe as being a physical reality is that it's hard for people to imagine what it would look/be like.

I think, on closer examination, you will find Strange's point - though not infinitely dense - is how current theoreticians view the issue. (I was going to say "view the matter", but someone would have responded that it was all energy.)

[Airbrush]

It seems unrealistic to suppose that the entire observable universe was contained within the size of a proton. The reality is we don't know what happens at such high densities. String theory makes sense using a collision of higher dimensions to cause the big bang. Such a collision could happen within a region of any size at all, like sheets hanging parallel on clothes lines will make contact over a wide region when the wind blows.

[WWLabRat]

It seems unrealistic to suppose that the entire observable universe was contained within the size of a proton. The reality is we don't know what happens at such high densities. String theory makes sense using a collision of higher dimensions to cause the big bang. Such a collision could happen within a region of any size at all, like sheets hanging parallel on clothes lines will make contact over a wide region when the wind blows.

 

I think this point was made in another thread... *Looks around at past postings* Okay, I can't find where it was mentioned, but I know this has come up before.

 

In the not so distant past it seemed unrealistic that a computer could be any smaller than a room. Before that, it seemed impossible for man to fly. And even before that, it seemed impossible that man would ever be able to harness the power of the god Zeus, yet we do every day. Also, since it does have a known size, the universe would have to be smaller than a proton in order to be considered infinitely small.

 

For imagery like this to be accurate, the universe would have been unmade immediately after it was "created". The force of the two sheets blowing together would then have caused them to separate again due to the force being equal and opposite. Even if it were not sheets, and instead two particles colliding, that universe that was created would have no basis anymore after the collision. That same force that caused the two particles to collide would then cause them to move in equal and opposite directions. The only way for this to happen would be to see that the energy that those two particles had is no gone. Not converted from kinetic into potential, but "destroyed" completely. It would no longer be able to exist in this dimension. And as such, those two particles wouldn't split so much as they would then fuse together. If they came apart, they would, just as the two sheets in the wind, unmake that universe.

[Sharanjeet Singh Mand]

reading all you discussion i feel you are not able to understand the question is that , was there something before big-bang?let us say it was a universe contracted to a size of sub-atomic particle , then where it came from, if one can answer ?except stupid religious theories!!!!well matter came into existence after big bang as famous equation of Einstein proves.Dear Byron, "bigbang is considered as creation or beginning of universe not expansion of very small dense universe ". well what was here at the point between Nothing and creation of universe.i know its still unknown. but if anybody can help upgrade my knowledge ?

[WWLabRat]

reading all you discussion i feel you are not able to understand the question is that , was there something before big-bang?let us say it was a universe contracted to a size of sub-atomic particle , then where it came from, if one can answer ?except stupid religious theories!!!!well matter came into existence after big bang as famous equation of Einstein proves.Dear Byron, "bigbang is considered as creation or beginning of universe not expansion of very small dense universe ". well what was here at the point between Nothing and creation of universe.i know its still unknown. but if anybody can help upgrade my knowledge ?

Was there something before the Big Bang? My friend, you have just asked the million dollar question for which no one has the answer. Any theory that we currently have is speculation at best. Other than that, we don't have much more than the thoughts religion would provide.

 

Technically there couldn't be a point between nothing-ness and creation. Creation either is or is not. There's not exactly room for middle ground.

[Airbrush]

Technically there couldn't be a point between nothing-ness and creation. Creation either is or is not. There's not exactly room for middle ground.

 

Exactly, the big bang came from something that existed before it. Just how strange that "something" was is anybody's guess.