Big Bang With No Center Fallacy?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Islam Hassan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang Center
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of the Big Bang, specifically whether it originated from a small, restricted area or if it occurred uniformly throughout space. Participants explore the implications of these views on the concept of a center in the universe and the terminology associated with the Big Bang.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the Big Bang either began in a small area or occurred everywhere simultaneously, questioning the appropriateness of the term "Big Bang" if the latter is true.
  • It is suggested that space was created during the Big Bang and that the universe underwent a massive expansion, but not into pre-existing space.
  • Several participants argue that the Big Bang did not occur at a specific point in space/time, as space/time itself did not exist prior to the event, challenging the notion of a localized origin.
  • The term "Big Bang" is noted to have been coined derisively by Fred Hoyle, indicating a historical context that may contribute to misunderstandings about the event.
  • There is acknowledgment of the inadequacy of common analogies, such as the circles-on-a-balloon analogy, in conveying the complexities of the Big Bang and its implications for understanding the universe.
  • Some participants express that while the balloon analogy can be useful, it has limitations that must be understood to avoid misconceptions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of the Big Bang and its implications, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in lay explanations of the Big Bang, noting that common analogies may not fully capture the phenomenon's complexities and can lead to misunderstandings.

Islam Hassan
Messages
237
Reaction score
5
Either the Big Bang began in a small, restricted area/volume/domain/node/etc or the universe sprang into existence "everywhere all at once" -whatever that means- as I once read somewhere (to explain why the universe has no center). So which is it? And if it sprang into existence in a homogenous way everywhere at once, why call it a Big Bang? Seems like a throw of the 'Big Switch' rather than a Big Bang in that case...
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Space was created at the big bang. It didn't expand into anything but the universe did go through a massive expansion.
 
Islam Hassan said:
Either the Big Bang began in a small, restricted area/volume/domain/node/etc or the universe sprang into existence "everywhere all at once" -whatever that means- as I once read somewhere (to explain why the universe has no center). So which is it? And if it sprang into existence in a homogenous way everywhere at once, why call it a Big Bang? Seems like a throw of the 'Big Switch' rather than a Big Bang in that case...

To say the Big Bang begain in a small area is a little bit off the mark. There was no "empty" space that the Big Bang happened in. It is thought, taking into consideration homogeneity that the Big Bang occurred geometrically in all points of space/time and then inflation and expansion followed. Prior to the Big Bang it is thought there was no space/time, so to assume the BB happened at a "point" in space/time fails to take into account that space/time as we understand it did not yet exist.

To clarify for you - the Big Bang did not begin in a small restricted part of space - current cosmoligcal models and pretty universal isotropy (excluding local variance) can rule this out.

Yes, the Big Bang is counter intuitive terminology and interestingly was coined by Fred Hoyle (a steady state advocate and in disagreement with expansion theory) as a derisory term; to Hoyles dismay the term stuck.
 
Cosmo Novice said:
To say the Big Bang begain in a small area is a little bit off the mark. There was no "empty" space that the Big Bang happened in. It is thought, taking into consideration homogeneity that the Big Bang occurred geometrically in all points of space/time and then inflation and expansion followed. Prior to the Big Bang it is thought there was no space/time, so to assume the BB happened at a "point" in space/time fails to take into account that space/time as we understand it did not yet exist.

To clarify for you - the Big Bang did not begin in a small restricted part of space - current cosmoligcal models and pretty universal isotropy (excluding local variance) can rule this out.

Yes, the Big Bang is counter intuitive terminology and interestingly was coined by Fred Hoyle (a steady state advocate and in disagreement with expansion theory) as a derisory term; to Hoyles dismay the term stuck.

Thanks for insight. I guess the spatial projection of the BB is another of those phenomena for which no satisfactory lay explanation really exists. The circles-on-a-balloon analogy especially I always found quite inadequate. Another case of mathematics over eyeballs...
 
Islam Hassan said:
Thanks for insight. I guess the spatial projection of the BB is another of those phenomena for which no satisfactory lay explanation really exists. The circles-on-a-balloon analogy especially I always found quite inadequate. Another case of mathematics over eyeballs...

As Cosmo Novice said, the BB is both counter intuitive (at a deep level). It is a VERY unfortunate choice of designations that has caused untold hours of folks trying to overcome the misunderstandings that arise from the idea of an explosion from a central point.

The circles on a balloon analogy is really a very good one if you understand the limitations that it does have and don't get hung up on them.
 
phinds said:
The circles on a balloon analogy is really a very good one if you understand the limitations that it does have and don't get hung up on them.

I totally agree with this, the analogy is a good one, as long as you take into account dimensional representation and apply a 3d analogue to the 2d surface of the balloon. This can then be extended to the n dimension.

I would definitely look at some of the other anologues as well as collectively they can really develop your understanding on current cosmological thinking.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
10K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 106 ·
4
Replies
106
Views
13K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K