1
$\begingroup$

I understand the Big Bang Theory to consist of all of the matter being pulled into one great gravitational pull. such a great force that it expelled the matter out causing the idea of Red-Shift and everything is moving away from us. But I always understood the BBT as how the universes and everything was created. How can this be so if there was matter to be pulled in and expelled during the BBT? Oh dear... My mind is soon to reenact that of the Big Bang. So yeah, how was the matter created BEFORE the BBT for the BBT to take place? Please correct me if my understanding of the BBT is incorrect.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your understanding is incorrect though I see how might have come to this notion. Sometimes, the Big Bang is motivated with the notion of "running the movie of the expanding universe in reverse" and, from this, concluding that at some finite time in the past, all the observable universe was compressed into a very small volume with very high temperature. $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri May 17 '14 at 19:07
  • $\begingroup$ Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/5150/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic May 17 '14 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ So what was there before the BBT and how was THAT created. My mind hurts :( $\endgroup$ – Harry Kitchener May 17 '14 at 20:46
  • $\begingroup$ @user46743 We can't assume that the physics we know today apply to a universe in the pre big bang state. Perhaps there was no time. Perhaps in this state forces behave differently. One thing we do know is that in quantum mechanics (if it applies) is: anything that has a probability of happening must happen. $\endgroup$ – user6972 May 17 '14 at 22:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @C.TowneSpringer, IINM, in Penrose's cosmology, the conformal cyclic cosmology, there is no collapse/expansion cycle at all. The infinitely expanded state of a prior aeon is identified with the big bang singularity of the next via a conformal rescaling. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri May 18 '14 at 0:48
2
$\begingroup$

It is simpler to think of the Big Bang model as the best model we have to fit the cosmological observations up to now.

It is a mathematical model to start with, and if one extrapolates it to the (0,0,0,0) point of space time one would arrive at the singularity that the mathematics of the model has. Do we expect that at the same time, the mass/energy that exists now in our observable universe had been "squized" to a point?

big bang

You will notice in the graphic that before we reach the mathematical singularity, going backwards, we hit the "inflation" region. That is the point where our observations end. What precedes is the inflation region that has been postulated because of the cosmological observations, and it is a quantized gravity region, otherwise the Big Bang model will not fit the data/observations. Quantum mechanics is notorious for avoiding singularities.

We have not managed to get a quantized gravity to work yet in a unified manner with the other three forces to be able to push the mathematics to the beginning of (0,0,0,0) so we cannot state what the final Big Bang model says for the very beginning.

In conclusion, the Big Bang model does not extend to the time where energy was "created". Different mathematical models are proposed for the possible beginnings but are at the moment disconnected from the empirical mathematical fit of the BB model. It is an open research field.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it is more accurate to say if one extrapolates to the (0,x,y,z) points, not the (0,0,0,0) point. $\endgroup$ – MBN May 18 '14 at 6:46
  • $\begingroup$ @MBN if there existed an (x,y,z) distribution it would not be the big bang model, at least as imaged above where the z( representing space) goes to zero too. I think it would be a different model. $\endgroup$ – anna v May 18 '14 at 6:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Of course it would be. For example the case of a spatially flat infinite universe. The big bang theory doesn't exclude that. $\endgroup$ – MBN May 18 '14 at 11:09
  • $\begingroup$ Another thing is, you say that it is a mathematical model to start with. This of course is true, but it gives the impression that being a mathematical model is somehow second class and there are better things out there. But what else could it be? $\endgroup$ – MBN May 21 '14 at 8:56
1
$\begingroup$

The flat universe theory basically states that the universe has a net energy state of zero. It exists due to some unknown perturbation which caused an explosion of space-time. There have been some experiments which have shown that matter can appear in a complete vacuum of space.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That seems valid. I just find it so mind-boggling as ignorant people say "The BBT created everything", but it didn't, there was matter that was pulled into a gravitation field BEFORE the BBT. How was this matter BEFORE the BBT created? There must have been matter in a vacuum, but how was this matter created? $\endgroup$ – Harry Kitchener May 17 '14 at 20:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.