Big Bang & Universe: Why No Bubble w/ Void?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wyzowl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang Bubble
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the Big Bang and its implications for the structure of the universe. Participants explore whether the universe should resemble a bubble with a void at its center, akin to explosions observed on Earth, and question the terminology and conceptual understanding of the Big Bang as an explosion versus an expansion of space.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the Big Bang was not an explosion but rather the beginning of the expansion of space itself.
  • There is a contention regarding the terminology of "Big Bang," with some noting it was originally a term used pejoratively by Fred Hoyle.
  • One participant suggests that the analogy of a cookie with raisins illustrates the expansion of the universe, but questions remain about the movement and collisions of galaxies.
  • Another participant raises the idea that while galaxies are generally moving away from each other, there are local groups that can collide, indicating complex dynamics beyond simple expansion.
  • Some participants express confusion about the role of black holes in the context of universal expansion, questioning whether they contribute to or contradict the idea of an expanding universe.
  • A hypothesis is proposed about a black hole potentially collapsing and leading to a Big Bang, although this remains speculative and unverified.
  • There is acknowledgment that the expansion of the universe is observed through the movement of galaxies, but the nature of this expansion and its implications are debated.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of the Big Bang or the implications of universal expansion. Multiple competing views are presented, particularly regarding the terminology and conceptual models of the universe's structure.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions of terms like "explosion" and "expansion," and there are unresolved questions about the dynamics of galaxies and the role of black holes in the universe's expansion.

wyzowl
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
When there is an explosion on Earth the void created is quickly filled with Earth debris. When we view an exploding star there is no debris (understandable) but there is a large bubble with a void in the middle. Why is the universe NOT shaped like a large bubble with a void since the accepted theory is that it was created with a big bang? Note: Since the expansion is still going on then there should be no debris falling inside the bubble.[?]
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Because the Big Bang wasn't an explosion. What was it? It was the Big Bang.
 
Not an explosion?

If it was not an explosion then why is everything moving away from everything else? Why is there a controversy about it recollapsing on itself? Why is it called a "bang"? What else is a bang?
You haven't answered a question; you have elicited more.
 
Big bang was an insult made by Fred Hoyle, who was a proponent of the steady state model. For some reason though, the name stuck. And here we are.

The problem seems to be that the big bang was not an explosion of matter into empty space. Rather, the void itself is expanding, and the BB is the beginning of this expansion. It may help to think of a grid, with galaxies drawn throughout. The galaxies are not flying apart in the background of this fixed, unchanging grid, but the grid itself expands and may eventually contract.
 


Originally posted by wyzowl
If it was not an explosion then why is everything moving away from everything else? Why is there a controversy about it recollapsing on itself? Why is it called a "bang"? What else is a bang?
You haven't answered a question; you have elicited more.
Yeah, I was lazy and Eh covered it. Good explanation.
 
Colgate University info

Thanks Radio Wave and also you Infrared Wave for enlightening me.
In the interim I found a good explanation on the Colgate University site. They compared it to a cookie with raisins; as the cookie expands the raisins move apart. I can understand the analogy but it doesn't explain why some galaxies and other objects wander around in the universe and even sometimes collide.
My bubble concept seems dead but a rapid expansion to me still describes an explosion. BANG !
 


Originally posted by wyzowl
I can understand the analogy but it doesn't explain why some galaxies and other objects wander around in the universe and even sometimes collide.
There aren't any galaxies that "wander," but there are "local groups" of galaxies that move in relation to each other. We are part of a local group of galaxies that are far closer to each other than the next closest galaxies.
 
Collisions.

I understand local groups but that just means that they are closer to each other than to other galaxies and groups, and bound by mutual gravity. There are still collisions of galaxies with other galaxies and collisions of other objects with each other so there is movement other than away from each other. All objects do not move on a radii from some central point. We have also recently discovered "planets" that are considered to "wander" rather than being a part of a "solar" system; and of course we have asteroids and comets that get perturbed from orbital paths from time to time.
So everything is not frozen in an expanding position (how's that for an oxymoron?) with relation to each other.
I believe that over "astronomical eons" that we would find that there is a lot of lateral movement that is unaccounted for.
Sidebar: Have two groups ever been known to collide or merge?
 
The galaxies are not flying apart in the background of this fixed, unchanging grid, but the grid itself expands and may eventually contract.
Hey how's the grid expanding? I thought there were black holes absorbing things, doesn't this shrink the size? And it's not like I didn't listen to chroot when he said that the black holes expand after sucking stuff in. But that would make the even bigger right? So that'll cause more things to get sucked in, right? [?]

Can a black hole contract? Maybe there was once this huge black hole that sucked everything in over a lloonnng period of tim. And then it started collasping because there was nothing more to suck up, however all the previous matter was still within in. So then it was kind of like compaction within the hole and the gravity inside it just kept compacting and building stress, until...BOOM! the Big Bang! hehehe ^_^ do you think that's possible?
 
  • #10
Originally posted by New-Prototype
Hey how's the grid expanding? I thought there were black holes absorbing things, doesn't this shrink the size? And it's not like I didn't listen to chroot when he said that the black holes expand after sucking stuff in. But that would make the even bigger right? So that'll cause more things to get sucked in, right? [?]

Can a black hole contract? Maybe there was once this huge black hole that sucked everything in over a lloonnng period of tim. And then it started collasping because there was nothing more to suck up, however all the previous matter was still within in. So then it was kind of like compaction within the hole and the gravity inside it just kept compacting and building stress, until...BOOM! the Big Bang! hehehe ^_^ do you think that's possible?
Black holes really aren't much different from any other massive object - they are just massive enough (dense enough) that light can't escape. If you compressed our sun into a little black hole without changing its mass, the orbits of the planets around it wouldn't change at all.

The expansion of the universe is a separate issue. The universe isn't a "thing" its just empty (more or less) space. And the empty space is getting bigger. How do we know? Because as discussed in wyzowl's other thread, everywhere we look, everything we see is moving away from us at high speed. And if we map those objects, we see that every object is moving away from every other object at high speed. The only possible explanation for this is that space itself is expanding.
All objects do not move on a radii from some central point. We have also recently discovered "planets" that are considered to "wander" rather than being a part of a "solar" system; and of course we have asteroids and comets that get perturbed from orbital paths from time to time.
Well that's just it - there is no central point. Like the cookie in the other thread (better yet, a balloon with dots on it that you are blowing up) everything is expanding away from everything else - except when things are already very close together. Also, we don't have the capability to see any planets beyond about 50 light years from us. When talking about the expansion of the universe, its not observable within our own galaxy only between galaxies not within our local group.

Some scale (distances from earth):

The Sun: 9 light minutes
Pluto: 4 light hours
Center of Galaxy: 25,000 light years
Nearest local galaxy: 80,000 light years
Andromeda Galaxy: 2.5 million light years
Diameter of the Universe: 20 billion light years

With the Hubble space telescope, we have been able to determine that there are roughly 100 billion galaxies in the universe. In accordance with the description above, if you point the Hubble in ANY direction, you see the same thing: lots of galaxies
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Expansion, yes.

It is accepted that our solar system is receding from VIRGO so expansion is not limited to just galaxies. It is also assumed that "space" contains a force that is probably causing the expansion. I think of it as negative gravity but that is just my way of understanding it.
I was corrected when I compared the expansion to the skin of a balloon; and rightly so. However, if you recall I was chastised for calling the big bang an explosion but in my recent research, prompted by chroot, I note that it is commonly referred to as an explosion.
But let's return to the issue of objects that are not traveling in an "expansion" route but are moving in independent fashions throughout the universe. Have their motions been perturbed by collisions, by massive gravity forces, or by some other force? Maybe their direction is caused because they were thrown off of a developing object that was too loosely composed. (Bad sentence structure.)
Sidebar question: Galaxies and solar systems are disc shaped due to rotational forces. Is the universe disc shaped; or do we know?
 
  • #12
Sidebar question: Galaxies and solar systems are disc shaped due to rotational forces. Is the universe disc shaped; or do we know?

I don't even see how can we find out whether it is or not because it's not like it has a boundary. I mean if we reach the edge of the universe somehow, would we even be able to know that that's the edge? Ooo...that's scary..it's almost like infinity, lol
 

Similar threads

High School Questions regarding energy in the universe
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
High School Acceleration of time due to entropy
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Big Bang and Infinite Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Undergrad Did cosmic inflation happen everywhere in the Universe?
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
12K
High School Big Bang Question -- How was the first matter formed?
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
7K
Undergrad Shouldn't the Big bang be physically impossible?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Graduate Could Space Be an Energy Conversion Rather Than a Result of the Big Bang?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad Why didn't the Big Bang form a Black Hole?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
High School Possibility of Another Big Bang?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Graduate Could the Big Bang Have Been a Massive Black Hole Eruption?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K