Big bang contradicts flat universe?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the apparent contradiction between the concept of a flat universe and the implications of the Big Bang theory. Participants explore the nature of the universe's geometry, its expansion, and the transition from the Big Bang to the current three-dimensional universe.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how a flat universe can arise from a Big Bang that suggests a three-dimensional expansion, proposing that it must have some curvature.
  • Others argue that the universe likely became flat over time due to its expansion, rather than starting flat.
  • A participant raises the issue of rapid expansion during the early universe, questioning how this would not lead to a nearly flat universe billions of years later.
  • There is a suggestion that the Big Bang could lead to a spherical structure, which would imply curvature, though this is contested by others who argue there is no basis for assuming a spherical shape in the Big Bang theory.
  • Some participants express confusion about the nature of the Big Bang, suggesting that it is often misunderstood as an explosion rather than a different kind of event.
  • One participant proposes that the original poster (OP) may be conflating flatness with two-dimensionality, while another clarifies the geometric definition of flatness in relation to cosmic measurements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the relationship between the Big Bang and the flatness of the universe. There is ongoing debate about the implications of the Big Bang for the universe's geometry and expansion.

Contextual Notes

Some statements reflect assumptions about the nature of the universe's geometry and the interpretation of the Big Bang, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion includes unresolved questions about the transition from the Big Bang to the current state of the universe.

lookaround9
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
big bang contradicts flat universe??

Hi, the data says our universe is flat, but we are also told it starts from big bang into a 3 dimensional world.

How can our universe is flat from all direction while we live now in 3 D universe from a big bang? it has to be a curve if it is from big bang homogenously inflate in all 3 directions
 
Space news on Phys.org


lookaround9 said:
Hi, the data says our universe is flat, but we are also told it starts from big bang into a 3 dimensional world.

How can our universe is flat from all direction while we live now in 3 D universe from a big bang? it has to be a curve if it is from big bang homogenously inflate in all 3 directions
This post isn't coherent. Why would you think this?

Anyway, for the most part nobody expects that our universe started flat, but rather that it became flat because of how the universe expanded with time (specifically at early times). Though there is some work that may indicate that a flat universe is indeed more likely from the start.
 


Hmm - A universe that begins with a big bang, and then mysteriously expands at e60 for a few milliseconds - how can such as universe not look nearly dead flat 13.7 billion years later? How do you explain exansion - you can't. It is an effective theory. It works, but, nobody can explain why - or how. A thousand or so years from now we will probably laugh, much like we do now at Ptolemy's epicycles [which was also an effective theory - for centuries].
 


the big bang shall bang into a sphere like structure. then a sphere like universe shall not be flat, it shall have some curvature, unless the universe is 2 d or a cubic like structure.
 


lookaround9 said:
the big bang shall bang into a sphere like structure. then a sphere like universe shall not be flat, it shall have some curvature, unless the universe is 2 d or a cubic like structure.
Well, who says it would produce a sphere-like structure in the first place? There's certainly no reason to think so within the big bang theory.
 


Chronos said:
Hmm - A universe that begins with a big bang, and then mysteriously expands at e60 for a few milliseconds - how can such as universe not look nearly dead flat 13.7 billion years later? How do you explain exansion - you can't. It is an effective theory. It works, but, nobody can explain why - or how. A thousand or so years from now we will probably laugh, much like we do now at Ptolemy's epicycles [which was also an effective theory - for centuries].

Right, but present-day epicycles are growing embarassingly hard to swallow by now, let's hope it does not take us a thousand years to laugh this time.
 


Chalnoth said:
Well, who says it would produce a sphere-like structure in the first place? There's certainly no reason to think so within the big bang theory.

please explain how we ends in current 3d world from the big bang?

I hope you not resort to holographic 2d world theory.
 


lookaround9 said:
please explain how we ends in current 3d world from the big bang?

I hope you not resort to holographic 2d world theory.
I do not understand the question. But it sounds to me like you're thinking of the 'big bang' as an explosion. It is not.
 


lookaround9 said:
Hi, the data says our universe is flat, but we are also told it starts from big bang into a 3 dimensional world.

How can our universe is flat from all direction while we live now in 3 D universe from a big bang? it has to be a curve if it is from big bang homogenously inflate in all 3 directions


The OP may be attempting to equate the Hubble sphere with the Big Bang - space can be Eucledean on a large scale but our observable limit is the same in every direction.So even if the universe is infinite - our Hubble sphere is finite.
 
  • #10


I think the OP assumes flat means 2D
 
  • #11


DLuckyE said:
I think the OP assumes flat means 2D
Perhaps. If so, in answer to that point, "flat", in geometric terms only means that triangles have angles which add up to 180°. So if you take three lasers, and align them so that they form a triangle, then measure the angles, in a flat universe you'll get exactly 180°.

This is, effectively, what we do when we compare lengths on the cosmic microwave background with lengths in the nearby universe. By comparing how far apart things appear to be on the sky, we are effectively drawing triangles with ourselves at one of the corners of the triangle. And when we compare, we get that our universe is flat to within the experimental error (currently around half a percent or so).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K