Is the Big Bang Misunderstood as an Explosion in Static Space?

[Imax]

The origin of our Universe (i.e. the Big Bang) is often considered as an explosion in static 3D Euclidian space:

http://youtu.be/R2Zi_z4n4c0

I think the Big Bang is somewhat of a misnomer. It’s not an explosion in static 3D Euclidian space. If this was the case, then it would difficult, if not impossible, to have homogeneous and isotropic expansion.

 

[twofish-quant]

The origin of our Universe (i.e. the Big Bang) is often considered as an explosion in static 3D Euclidian space

And that view is incorrect.

I think the Big Bang is somewhat of a misnomer.

The name Big Bang came from Fred Hoyle who was one of the leading opponents of the idea, but it sort of stuck.

One thing that I've found is that increasingly people are using it to mean two different things. The event at t=0 about which we have no information about and which is speculative, and what happened after t=0, of which we have a lot of information about and which is on very firm observational foundations.

 

[juanrga]

The origin of our Universe (i.e. the Big Bang) is often considered as an explosion in static 3D Euclidian space:

http://youtu.be/R2Zi_z4n4c0

I think the Big Bang is somewhat of a misnomer. It’s not an explosion in static 3D Euclidian space. If this was the case, then it would difficult, if not impossible, to have homogeneous and isotropic expansion.

The Big Bang is not that.