How is the Big Bang compatible with an infinite universe?

[member 529879]

I have very little understanding of the Big Bang, but it seems like it would require a finite universe even though there seems to be a scientific consensus that an infinite universe is a strong possibility. How are these ideas compatible? If space started expanding from a small point at a finite speed, how can the universe be infinite in size, a finite amount of time later?

 

[phinds]

It did NOT start as a "small point". This is a canard that you see everywhere in popular science presentations because reality is a bit more complex and they don't want to be bothered (or they don't actually know what they are talking about)

It DID start as a "singularity" but that does not mean "point" it just means " the place where our math model, if extrapolated backwards, gives unphysical results and we don't know what is happening". The big bang happened everywhere at once.

 

[rootone]

You also have to bear in mind that the originally very much denser and smaller Universe refers to the observable Universe.
We don't know if there is more to the Universe beyond that which is observable, and if there is it might be infinite or it might not.

 

[H Smith 94]

It's also worth noting that it is not physically possible to picture the big bang from outside of the universe, since there was nothing that can exist where there is no universe. Instead, the big bang happened from within the universe, with space itself expanding rapidly -- not with the universe expanding from a finite 'point' to a bigger finite area. In this way, the single point idea often misleads people into thinking of it from the outside and thus, believing erroneously that a universe in which the big bang happened cannot be infinite.

Out of interest, can anyone recall the evidence that the universe may be infinite? I've read it in lots of places but can't remember exactly why it's an acceptable assumption.

 

[Jorrie]

Out of interest, can anyone recall the evidence that the universe may be infinite? I've read it in lots of places but can't remember exactly why it's an acceptable assumption.

We observe large scale space to be flat, or very nearly so. Couple this to homogeneity and infinite space becomes a real possibility.

 

[PAllen]

An analogy might help to conceive this. Imagine an infinite unstretched rubber sheet. Now, imagine stretching this uniformly everywhere at once, so any patch doubles in size every second. A patch, followed back in time to infinite density is singular in the sense Phinds described. However, any any moment of existence (the singularity might better be thought of as 'before existence', and anyway may not occur in a wide range of models with quantum gravity), the universe is infinite. Infinite is peculiar - you can keep cutting it in half forever but it is still infinite.

 

[Chronos]

Yes, that initial small 'point' occupied the entire universe [keeping in mind there is no place outside the universe, by definition] so it is not possible to assign it dimensiona in any classical sense. That implies it could have been infinite from the git to. If the universe is perfectly 'flat' as existing data suggests, it should be infinite. But, there is some amount of error in any possible measurement - so while it is possible to prove it is finite, to the limits of measurement accuracy, it is impossible to prove it is infinite.

 

[stedwards]

It's also worth noting that it is not physically possible to picture the big bang from outside of the universe, since there was nothing that can exist where there is no universe.

If the universe is a deSitter space, it can be embedded in a higher dimensional space (I think 5 is sufficient) where it may be "pictured" from outside in the sense that the observer does not reside on the $R^4$ submanifold occcupied by the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_space#Static_coordinates

 

[stedwards]

It did NOT start as a "small point". This is a canard that you see everywhere in popular science presentations because reality is a bit more complex and they don't want to be bothered (or they don't actually know what they are talking about)

It DID start as a "singularity" but that does not mean "point" it just means " the place where our math model, if extrapolated backwards, gives unphysical results and we don't know what is happening". The big bang happened everywhere at once.

I don't believe "singularity" (at some given time, as you imply) and a "point" are mutually exclusive. Take a manifold consisting of the surface of a half cone, for instance. The apex of the cone is both a point on the manifold and singular; differentiation fails.

From a quantum physics point of view, it's considered that, at the beginning of the universe, the radius could not be zero, but some minimum value around the Planck length. With this idea in mind, none of the mathematical machinery of relativity is expected to work. Calling it a singularity is like saying, "this thing that isn't a topological set is also singular". No one seems to have a good name for it beyond "beginning of time".

 

[phinds]

No one seems to have a good name for it.

I see no problem with using "singularity" as a placeholder so that we don't have to always say "the place where the math model breaks down if you extrapolate it backwards to where its time value is zero". That's too many sylables. "Singularity" is simpler and since we pretty much all agree that that's what it means, it's a perfectly good placeholder.

 

[stedwards]

Sounds like slang to me; like saying "electricity flows in wires".

 

[rootone]

I think the idea of the 'placeholder name' is not unreasonable in itself.
After all we refer to 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' to describe phenomena which are seen to exist, but which we know very little about at present.
The problem with 'the singularity' is that (some of. not all) pop-science repeatedly conveys the wrong impression that we know exactly what is happening when we simply don't,
in the worst cases with overtones of creationism being implied.

 

[phinds]

Another problem with "singularity" is that since we call the "start" of the big bang epoch a singularity AND well call the thing at the center of a black hole a singularity, pop-science sometime conflates the two when actually they have nothing to do with each other except for the shared placeholder name. Nonetheless, scientists seem to have no problem with the convention, just pop-science readers.

 

[member 529879]

Would it be correct to say that the universe could be both finite or infinite, and that of its finite the Big Bang occurred at a single point. If it's infinite, it occurred everywhere at once?

 

[phinds]

Would it be correct to say that the universe could be both finite or infinite, and that of its finite the Big Bang occurred at a single point. If it's infinite, it occurred everywhere at once?

No it would not. The big bang did not happen at a single point, regardless of whether the universe is finite or infinite. It happened everywhere at once.

 

[member 529879]

No it would not. The big bang did not happen at a single point, regardless of whether the universe is finite or infinite. It happened everywhere at once.

Maybe my problem is just that it's very counter intuitive. It seemed to me like an infinite universe would be required if the Big Bang happened everywhere at once. What exactly does it mean for the Big Bang to happen everywhere at once?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBr4GkRnY04 at 4:10 is where some of my confusion comes from.

 

[phinds]

Maybe my problem is just that it's very counter intuitive. It seemed to me like an infinite universe would be required if the Big Bang happened everywhere at once. What exactly does it mean for the Big Bang to happen everywhere at once?

I don't know how else to describe "everywhere at once" but perhaps it would help you to consider a topology that is finite but unbounded, which is what we would probably have if the universe were finite. Finite and bounded presents serious problems in terms of known physics because there just isn't any way to deal with the "edge". Finite but unbounded is where things "wrap around". For example the surface of a sphere is finite but unbounded.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, yes it IS non-intuitive, as are many things in cosmology and quantum mechanics.

 

[jerromyjon]

What exactly does it mean for the Big Bang to happen everywhere at once?

Just as a layman's analogy, a bomb has a location so when it "explodes" you can see how it expands from its initial location. When the BB is considered everything expands from everything else without any "central point of reference".

 

[Mordred]

Maybe my problem is just that it's very counter intuitive. It seemed to me like an infinite universe would be required if the Big Bang happened everywhere at once. What exactly does it mean for the Big Bang to happen everywhere at once?

There is no outside perspective, our observable portion of the universe is finite, but that's just our observable portion. If you extrapolate backwards in time, this portion would have a miniscule point like volume. However we have no idea on the volume of the entire universe. It could be finite or infinite.

Even an Infinite universe can expand the same way a finite universe can expand.

As Phinds mentioned there is no edge

 

[phinds]

Just as a layman's analogy, a bomb has a location so when it "explodes" you can see how it expands from its initial location. When the BB is considered everything expands from everything else without any "central point of reference".

Exactly. "Everywhere at once" means the big band WAS the entire universe, whether it was finite or infinite, and a center would imply a preferred frame of reference, which experiments say does not exist.

 

[jerromyjon]

This is probably the number one argument for an infinite universe: if there was some type of boundary the expansion would not be expected to be so homogeneous across the entire observable universe. The "wrap-around" concept of finite space could alleviate that symptom, but then you might expect to see galaxies very far away from us moving towards us, which we don't.

 

[phinds]

This is probably the number one argument for an infinite universe: if there was some type of boundary the expansion would not be expected to be so homogeneous across the entire observable universe. The "wrap-around" concept of finite space could alleviate that symptom, but then you might expect to see galaxies very far away from us moving towards us, which we don't.

No, the most current hypotheses regarding a "wrap around universe" are SO huge that there is no possibility we would actually SEE the evidence.

 

[stedwards]

This is probably the number one argument for an infinite universe: if there was some type of boundary the expansion would not be expected to be so homogeneous across the entire observable universe. The "wrap-around" concept of finite space could alleviate that symptom, but then you might expect to see galaxies very far away from us moving towards us, which we don't.

Hmm. See phind's post #17. See the FRW universe, where, for a given time > zero (universal time), space is unbounded and finite.

This entire thread is nearly impossible to make sense of. "Infinite universe" is an ambiguous term. Infinite time? infinite space?

 

[phinds]

This entire thread is nearly impossible to make sense of. "Infinite universe" is ambiguous. Infinite time? infinite space?

The clear consensus in modern cosmology is that time is finite (so far, but just wait around ). It is space that might be infinite. Certainly the Big Bang Theory says that time is finite and specifically the amount that has passed so far is about 13+ billion years. If this is correct, it will always be finite because you can't get from finite to infinite. There's always tomorrow but there are a limited number of yesterdays.

 

[Chronos]

What part of everywhere is difficult; left right up or down?

 

[stedwards]

The clear consensus in modern cosmology is that time is finite (so far, but just wait around ). It is space that might be infinite. Certainly the Big Bang Theory says that time is finite and specifically the amount that has passed so far is about 13+ billion years. If this is correct, it will always be finite because you can't get from finite to infinite. There's always tomorrow but there are a limited number of yesterdays.

Forgive my frustration. I should know that it's often difficult to construct grammatically correct statements about these things. But it really is the finite or infinite nature of space, in the comoving frame (where the cosmic background radiation is relatively isotropic) rather than "the universe" that seems to be under consideration. To give another example "There is always tomorrow..." should be stated as "There will always be tomorrow..." Tomorrow does not exist, and "there are not a finite number of yesterday's", should be "there were a finite number of yesterdays".

This is not a direct criticism. Nearly everybody does this. It's not the proper language for spacetime, but for spacetime models where you can stick your thumb on a diagrams and say "here is the future," and everybody knows that what's under your thumb nail is not the future.

 

[PeterDonis]

The "wrap-around" concept of finite space could alleviate that symptom, but then you might expect to see galaxies very far away from us moving towards us,

Why do you think this? The closed FRW model is spatially finite but no comoving observers see other galaxies moving towards them.

 

[jerromyjon]

The quantum hamiltonian operator of the gravitational field takes the form of a difference operator, where the elementary step is the quantum of the 3-volume derived in the flat case by Ashtekar, Pawlowski and Singh
Who are they? Quick wiki on the relevance would be sweet, as long as it has references.

 

[jerromyjon]

What part of everywhere is difficult

Looking out from the inside is the hard part. The universe is so simple it is foolproof.

 

[marcus]

The quantum hamiltonian operator of the gravitational field takes the form of a difference operator, where the elementary step is the quantum of the 3-volume derived in the flat case by Ashtekar, Pawlowski and Singh
Who are they? Quick wiki on the relevance would be sweet, as long as it has references.

Here are some references to some 2006 papers by Ashtekar, Pawlowski, Singh. The abstracts indicate something of the significance of the work.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607039 (40 pages)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604013 (61 pages)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602086 (4 pages)

 

[jerromyjon]

or i) the scalar field is shown to serve as an internal clock, thereby providing a detailed realization of the `emergent time' idea; ii) the physical Hilbert space, Dirac observables and semi-classical states are constructed rigorously; iii) the Hamiltonian constraint is solved numerically to show that the big bang is replaced by a big bounce.

Yeah, that's what I am talking about! I'm too beat to get any further into this tonight. Thanks for the links!

 

[NickAtNight]

Correct, the Big Bang implies that the Universe had a beginning and thus is finite.

My understanding is that the Universe is not infinite in size. The size of the Universe is sphere approximately 13.8 billion light years in radius.

The competing model for an infinite Universe (Steady State Theory) is currently out of favor based on current evidence.

The fate of the Universe could be:
1) Big Crunch - Collapsing back to a singularity (currently out of favor)
2) Steady State -
3) Continued Expansion - Resulting in a slow cold death. Currently in favor

 

[phinds]

Correct, the Big Bang implies that the Universe had a beginning and thus is finite.

No, the Big Bang Theory is silent on the origins. If you follow the math backwards to "t=0" you get an unphysical result, so the consensus is that we don't know what was going on at that time. The BB Theory ASSUMES there was nothing before t=0 because it is purely a discussion of what happened after about one Plank time after "t=0" [see note 1]

My understanding is that the Universe is not infinite in size. The size of the Universe is sphere approximately 13.8 billion light years in radius.

That is a deeply flawed understanding. The OBSERVABLE universe is that size the universe is bigger and might be infinite (or might not, but estimates of its size if it is not generally run to many orders of magnitude greater than the observable universe.

EDIT: note 1: I should add that because there is currently no known way to tell from any empirical evidence that there was anything prior to t=0, it is common to say that there was nothing and that space and time started with the singularity. There ARE theories (speculative, unproven and perhaps not provable) that there was something before t=0 but if there was it is not addressed in the BB Theory, which as I said starts at one Plank time.

 

[NickAtNight]

Dr. Michael S. Turner
The Dark Side of the Universe.

 

[NickAtNight]

Incorrect.

The Big Bang theory was not silent as to its origin.

Georges Lemaitre, posited that the Universe started from a single 'particle' at a definite point in time.

"http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html , the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time. This startling idea first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. The theory, accepted by nearly all astronomers today, was a radical departure from scientific orthodoxy in the 1930s. Many astronomers at the time were still uncomfortable with the idea that the universe is expanding. That the entire observable universe of galaxies began with a bang seemed preposterous."

The point that the math collapses as T reaches 0 is not relevant. That argument is best left to models beyond the Big Bang model.