Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Empty Nest - possible or not possible aspect of Big Bang?

  1. Empty Nest is possible

    2 vote(s)
  2. Empty Nest is not possible

    3 vote(s)
  3. Information to confirm or reject this hypothesis will never be available.

    3 vote(s)
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Feb 19, 2006 #1

    I think this is a good theoretical question (hypothetical question) to ask. What I am interested in figuring out is: the possibility of the following hypothesis, not whether it is rejectable or not. Is it possible!?!?

    With the term 'Empty Nest' the specific condition and location within the process of the Big Bang is meant, where during the process of materialization, the center area of the Big Bang was not involved; as in not actively partaking in the materialization itself.

    In this hypothesis, when looking back in time, the center of the Big Bang is empty (hence the name). The center in specifics is not involved with materialization — but rather almost undisturbed. Empty Nest is proposed to be surrounded by materialization moving away from the nest, making the nest larger. As such, the process of the Big Bang is then comparable to the behavior of a balloon in which all air molecules are under high pressure when blowing up such device, and that close to all air molecules would move almost perfectly outward all around when that balloon is punctuated from all sides at once (which is of course a condition that cannot be performed on a balloon in a perfect way, but that delivery — close to perfectly executed — is one of the options for how the Big Bang took place). For the Empty Nest theory, the skin of the balloon is the primordial condition of our universe that does not belong to our universe, while the outward movement can be see as part of the process of materialization. Under such conditions, a few molecules in the center of the balloon would be stirred, but not shaken, while they are immediately surrounded by all other air molecules that move outward in all directions at varying speeds. As such, the process of materialization (which occurs in/during the outward movement) would then be an outward manifestation of propelled energy, while the center of the Big Bang does not participate in that process of materialization (though it can nevertheless be considered as a fundamental part of the Big Bang).

    So that is the question out there. Would this be theoretically possible with the facts we know today, and if so what are the specific implications/requirements under which this theoretical outcome would have operated?
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 19, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Hi Fredrick, I see you moved your question to Cosmology, which it seems like it is that kind of question.

    I will go along with that and move the main part of my reply here too

    Good luck getting answers to your questions! :smile:
  4. Mar 5, 2006 #3

    Hi Marcus,

    I looked at most of your links and did not find too much information that would make my question invalid. The only possible information that has some relevancy is that about expansion of the universe; it is not an explosion but a shift outward. According to me, that is more confirming what I describe than not.

    You leave me thinking that you only glanced over my question instead of reading and considering it carefully.
  5. Mar 6, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm having trouble following this idea ... are you looking at something within GR, or a (possible) theoretical framework that either ignores GR or contains elements inconsistent with GR?

    Wrt 'materialization', are you referring to baryosynthesis? nucleosynthesis? or something completely different?
  6. Mar 6, 2006 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    glad to see you taking care of this one, Nereid!

    I couldnt respond (when this was posted in another forum) because I didn't understand what the poster could mean by the "center area" of big bang expansion.

    AFAIK the big bang expansion that young people are told about in school is a CENTERLESS expansion

    so if no PLACE exists in our universe which one can point to as the center of the expansion, then it is meaningless to say that this place is empty----in other words "empty nest" cannot mean anything real in this context.

    so as far as I can see the poster must be talking about something which he CALLS the big bang, but which is not the usual big bang that cosmologists normally study and children are told about. (I assume it is a male because of the name "Fredrick")

    It seems that the poster must have his own private idea of what "big bang" means----not the ordinary mainstream idea.

    Since you are the expert in this subforum, I will just watch and see how it goes. Good luck:smile:

    Good luck to you also, Fredrick. Hope you find the answer to your question.
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2006
  7. Mar 6, 2006 #6
    Empty Nest - spatial aspect.

    Thank you for both your replies. Language is not my forte, so let me try first to reformulate what the question is. Empty Nest does not delve into where matter comes from, but poses the spatial question whether materialization started out from a solid first moment from which the outward movement of materialization took off or whether the first moment already contained an empty space - i.e. contained some non-materialization.

    Possibly both of you are giving me the answer here already. I am looking for a spatial aspect of the Big Bang, which (and please correct me if I am wrong) is presented in mainstream popular science as having a singular aspect to its beginning. So if kids learn that the Big Bang does not have a center - i.e. is centerless - then I have at least some of the answer in. Yet it appears that you only mean with centerless that the location cannot be pinpointed. My understanding of the Big Bang is that it is the recounting of the timeline in which materialization shows an outward movement in space. Though not exactly pinpointing to a specific spot in space, it originated in a certain defined area (unless you believe that universes are born out of other universes and that the process is therefore continuous. I don't believe in that; the answer should be available already when there is - and ever was - just one universe).

    Looking forward to hear/read more from you.
  8. Mar 10, 2006 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Fredrick, I'm sorry to say that I still can't follow what you're saying.

    Let me try this - the evolution of a universe like ours depends upon a small number of 'initial parameters', if GR 'runs' such a universe.

    Leaving aside inflation (for the moment), and just looking at GR, you could say that you need only consider two kinds of things (I'm simplifying greatly - we can add more and more 'reality' later) - stuff which has no mass (and travels at c), and stuff which has mass. In other words, photons/radiation and matter.

    When you run the GR equations, and add in some basic things about photons and the kind of matter we know something about ('baryonic matter'), you find there are some 'natural milestones' in the history of these kinds of universes, for example, when protons (etc) became stable (and neutrinos became essentially detached from the rest of the universe), when atoms became stable (and photons became essentially detached from the rest of the universe). Perhaps these milestones (a.k.a. transitions) are what you mean by 'materialization'? If not, then what do you mean?

    Note that a universe without one or other (photons or matter), or with a different balance of the two, would have a different history than ours. Similarly, a universe with only 'dark matter' (and no baryons) would also be a different universe (and not just because there'd be no 'us' in it!).

    As to the 'singular aspect to its beginning', I'd love just one cent for the number of times I trot out my standard spiel - unless you give some credence to theories such as String Theory or LQG, we cannot say anything terribly meaningful about the regime in the early history of the universe, at and around the first Planck second. In this regime, the two best theories of physics that we have - QM and GR - are violently mutually incompatible (in other regimes the incompatibility doesn't hinder making some good models, which models match 'reality' extremely well).

    So what to do? A common popularisation is to ignore the QM incompatibility, and focus on what happens when you run 'the GR clock back' - you have a singularity. Sadly, all this really means is that your equations/theory can't tell you anything (not to mention that 'turning off QM' is ridiculous).

    The other part of your second para (about a centre) is a common misunderstanding. Perhaps other PFers will point you to good sites which explain this aspect well?
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2006
  9. Mar 10, 2006 #8
    In the language of “spatial aspect” in terms of your Empty Nest only makes sense to me if you look at that “original balloon” as being our entire reality. That balloon skin was pushed out to our current universe by some force from inside or as you call it the empty nest. This means that inside empty nest is NOT part of our reality and can best be understood as some part of a MWI.

    This is not really following the concept that built the Big Bang.
    More like slapping on the ideas imbedded in Multi World without any real justification or reason why. In fact it does imply “universes are born out of other universes” in a way.

    Wouldn’t have a clue how to vote on something like this – it seems more qualified for “Not even Wrong”.
  10. Mar 10, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think Fredricks idea is akin to one i had long ago, the BB produced an observable skin of planets stars etc, whilst the quantum world lay under
    this skin ,manifesting its self as things like virtual particles, the two react
    but are seperate.
  11. Mar 10, 2006 #10
    Question of model


    Thanks for very good words that force me to reword Empty Nest to make it more compatible with your words. First off, I do actually not subscribe to the theory of singularity; I used it to deliver the popular view. So thank you for correcting these words (for which I plead).

    Here is my new (hopefully improved) description of Empty Nest:
    This model starts with just the potential of our universe's formation (without the potential the actual universe would of course not have come into being). It is from the outward movement of our universe, that we can conclude that energy was moving outwardly from the start. This energy is often described as expanding. Differently, but similarly, Empty Nest theory describes this as outwardly propelled energy.

    In the theory of Empty Nest, the center of the delivery of our universe remained in place without (much) movement, but the surrounding 'area' got propelled outwardly. This outwardly propelled energy lead to, what you already described well, photons/radiation and matter, while the center's potential remained just that: potential. In ordinary words, nothing in the center got propelled outwardly because it is not energized/not propelled. If you want to call that dark matter, be my guest.

    In Empty Nest there would be no conflict in QM and GR, since they both are tied in together with the potential, and not with the outcome. In this theory, each exists in their own state in the propelled energy.

    I feel I need to explain that better, and maybe my language is lacking here (again) so please have patience with my few words. The unfulfilled potential (Empty Nest) within the realm of potential being fulfilled (expanding universe) allows for QM to exist at the same time that GR comes into play. Our universe consists of both fulfilled potential and unfulfilled potential. For GR and QM to fit into one model, the trick is that the unfulfilled potential and GR have nothing in common; there is no influence of the unfulfilled potential on GR. Yet it delivers QM the option to be QM. Therefore QM includes both fulfilled and unfulfilled potential, but GR only the fulfilled.

    In short: the current model only looks for an absolute compatibility for both GR and QM, while the model that includes Empty Nest allows QM and GR to exist in our universe simultaneously because it allows for a spatial disconnect.

    Would you say that this theory is possible?
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2006
  12. Mar 12, 2006 #11
    Your model

    Hi Wolfram,

    I just saw your post. Can you tell more about your model? It looks like your model too does not require QM and GR to be compatible all over; it is the model that needs tweaking but not the known information, right?
  13. Mar 12, 2006 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hi Fredrick, you must excuse me i am rather (scatter brained) i can think
    some thing, and be totally unable to explain it in wrighting or justify it.
  14. Mar 19, 2006 #13
    Anybody Else?

    Hi Wolram,

    Thanks for your contribution, though it was no more than a facade of a contribution! I guess I will take it as a lesson that people can sometimes intuitively know things, but can then not deliver more than that. Please, when remembering more, come back to this thread.

    It also leaves me wondering if there are any other people out there able to communicate on an abstract level about this model. Like the Geo-centric model and Galilieo's model for the solar system, there are two models that have a lot of the same information in common; it is mainly that the models differ, so it is not really worth to fight over specific scientific details because they would be (close to) identical in both models of Empty Nest and the current BB. In Galileo's time, it was the model that was radical, not the exact information (the information Galileo provided was rejected for being 'insufficient').

    Just like these two models, one turning out to be correct, the other incorrect, Empty Nest competes with the current model about how our universe came into being, either through materialization from a central spot, or - in Empty Nest - from an already very large outward-centric movement. To exaggerate the model, a quarter of all space as we know it remained empty at the moment our universe came into being. Not a central spot, but an enormously large outward area was involved with the process of materialization; that what was on the inside was not involved with the process of materialization. As such, Empty Nest is a model that gives a place to dark matter and energy.

    Will anybody else respond to the theory of Empty Nest, possibly as an abstract model, a battle royale? Is it possible that our universe came into being, with the very first instance already spanning an incredibly large area where internally not much materialization took place?
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2006
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook