Is the Big Bang Caused by a Four-Dimensional Explosion?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proposed theory regarding the Big Bang, specifically whether it could be conceptualized as a four-dimensional explosion causing the expansion of space itself. Participants explore the implications of this idea, including the topology of the universe and the nature of spacetime, while addressing the foundational aspects of cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the Big Bang could be viewed as an explosion in a fourth dimension, leading to the expansion of space rather than just matter.
  • Another participant challenges the idea of a universe that "wraps around" on itself, stating that while it is a possibility, there is no evidence to support it and it is considered unlikely.
  • A different participant points out that the proposed topology of a finite but bounded universe is not established fact, and that an infinite universe is also a viable option.
  • Concerns are raised about the use of the term "space itself" expanding, with a participant emphasizing that physical theories describe the behavior of objects within spacetime rather than spacetime as an object that can move.
  • Several participants reference external resources and articles to provide context and further understanding of cosmological concepts, including the nature of expansion and the geometry of the universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the universe's topology and the interpretation of the Big Bang. There is no consensus on the proposed theory, and multiple competing views remain regarding the expansion of space and the nature of spacetime.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the topology of the universe and the implications of describing spacetime. The discussion reflects uncertainty regarding the foundational concepts of cosmology and the interpretations of the Big Bang.

Mar
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello all, this is my first post here. I'm about as literate in physics as an ant is literate in algebra, but I was wondering if this theory about the big bang that popped into my head can stand on its own. (I'm doubt I'm the first person to ask this by any means, but I suppose it gives me a chance to introduce myself.)

My theory is that if the big bang caused space itself to expand rather than just an expansion of matter from a central point within space (as I've come to understand), and if the universe "wraps around" on itself in such a way that you could go in one direction from one point and arrive at that same point again (as I've come to understand), that could potentially entail that whatever force that caused the universe to expand could be extradimensional.

If we look at the universe as a four dimensional hypersphere, where the three dimensions that we know (length, depth and height) comprise the surface of that 4D sphere (much like how the surface of a balloon could be inferred as "two dimensional" in a sense,) perhaps some sort of "explosion" occurred in the fourth dimension, beneath our little three dimensional membrane wrapped around a hypersphere, causing space itself to expand?

Of course we'd need an explanation for the origin of this little membrane, too.

So how much of a fool am I making of myself?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Mar said:
if the universe "wraps around" on itself in such a way that you could go in one direction from one point and arrive at that same point again (as I've come to understand)
There's no evidence for this. All we can say is, it's possible but unlikely.
 
As Bill K points out, your "understanding" that space is finite but bounded (the topology you described) is wrong in that it is possible but absolutely not established fact. Another possibility is that space is infinite (and always has been). Both topologies are mind-bending, but we're here so it must have been SOMETHING :smile:

As for your hypothesis about hyperspace, that is also possible but possibly unprovable and as you say, it requires just as much explanation as what you are trying to use it to explain so it's still turtles all the way down.
 
The others have covered your question and I have nothing to add to their comments.

However this thread has numerous details covering what we do understand of expansion.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=748102

its a fairly lengthy thread but there is some useful articles contained in it to understand the Cosmology view points from what we do understand.
in particular the following

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies

here is an article covering expansion and redshift, written by myself with PF members assistance, tends to answer a lot of questions.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...6&postcount=10

Phind's balloon analogy is also worth reading
http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/

Another article I've written covering Universe Geometry is also useful
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4720016&postcount=86

those should catch you up to speed on cosmology basics in regards to geometry and expansion
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar said:
My theory is that if the big bang caused space itself to expand rather than just an expansion of matter from a central point within space (as I've come to understand),


First, there was no central point. The big bang, or more accurately the expansion that occurs at the point in time right before our theories break down, occurs everywhere all at once, not at a single location within space.

Also, saying "space itself" expanded is meaningless since all physical theories describe how objects behave within the underlying framework of spacetime. GR deals with the geometry of spacetime, but it does not deal with spacetime as an actual object that can move. In other words, galaxies are receding from each other not because space itself is moving, but because of the way the geometry of spacetime works.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K