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

Only 1 Big Bang?

  1. Dec 20, 2009 #1
    Was there only 1 big bang? Why not 2 or 3 or billion ?
    Please don't flame me - i'm not physicist, i'm just curious :)
    Thanks very much for attention.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 20, 2009 #2
    If there can be more than 1...
    Was there a time?
    Can be one bigger then another?
    What will happen when their bubbles collide?
    Can there be different evolution of forces? or can there be different forces in different big bang bubbles ?
    How they possibly will interact if they meet each other?
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2009
  4. Dec 20, 2009 #3
  5. Dec 20, 2009 #4
  6. Dec 20, 2009 #5
    WOW this was old and so interesting:)
  7. Dec 20, 2009 #6
    I have read about the Chaotic Inflation theory and Big Bounce, also about the Quantum foam but... theres many new words for me as u may guess.
    Can u give me readings for beginners about quantum mechanics or anything that can help me understand? also i have some other questions -
    Is the Linde "background space-time foam" the same thing as "Quantum foam" devised by
    John Wheeler?
    And from Big Bounce theory objections - "Furthermore, it remains a possibility that a better understanding of quantum foam may result in a re-interpretation of the evidence regarding the fate of our universe." can this lead back to Chaotic Inflation theory?
    And from Chaotic Inflation theory - "Each universe within the multiverse can have a different set of constants and physical laws." can they mix?
    Oh i hope that these things are not so complicated as interesting xD
  8. Dec 21, 2009 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There's only one that we see. There's no reason whatsoever why it has to be the only one.
  9. Dec 21, 2009 #8
    My view is that matter and energy has always existed, and did not appear out of a vaccume or nothing. Space itself may have infinite volume, but there appears to be a finite amount of matter and energy within this infinite space.

    The big bang implies that all matter and energy at one point was condensed into a singularity that exploded scattering the finite amount of matter and energy through out infinite space.

    I imagine we have this expansion, and gravitational centers form as matter starts to recombine into stars and black holes. Eventually certain points within the Universe will start to form massive gravitational points causing a retraction of matter into these centers as they start to consume all matter.

    This form of gravitational decay eventually starts to slow expansion and the intensity of these super gravitational systems, black holes will eventually recombine to one massive point in the Universe that will become the new point of singularity where by everything will swirl around like a toilet flushing in this final vortex and the singularity can form once again.

    Another big bang, and the process could repeat for infinity. If this is true, we might be able to calculate the time of expansion, the collapse of systems into gravitational hot spots, the recombining of these hotspots into a massive center.

    It may take 37 billion years, 109 billion years, I am not sure how to calculate that math because I really don't know the finite volume of matter vs the gravity it creates to affect the current expansion into contraction. I'm sure someone will get it if it's true.
  10. Dec 22, 2009 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think it ducks the big issue. A cyclical universe is aesthetically pleasing, but, does not really answer the question. A temporally finite universe raises disturbing issues. It implies a pre-existing state beyond our ability to comprehend. I am content with that explanation.
  11. Dec 22, 2009 #10
    I'm not qualified to give you in depth on these topics, but one thing I will point out is that any theory that talks about before the big bang is, at this point, extremely speculative. If there is a way to describe an outcome of the theory coherently, then it is "possible" in the sense that none of these theories have any direct evidence to support them.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook