Space & Big Bang: Was the Marble in a Universe of Time & Space?

[36grit]

It is my understanding that at one time all matter in the universe was an object of near infinite density the size of a marble. My question is, was this "Marble" surrounded by space/time?
if so, isn't the size of the mass relative to your position in that space time?

 

[Rick88]

The Universe is the space-time.
And at that time all the Universe was that marble of mass.
space-time outside the Universe makes no sense. :)

R.

 

[NobodySpecial]

It is my understanding that at one time all matter in the universe was an object of near infinite density the size of a marble. My question is, was this "Marble" surrounded by space/time?

In the normal model of the big then no - the whole universe of time and space was created along with any matter in it.
ps The universe didn't start marble sized, earlier than that it was smaller. There are various size/density points beyond which various laws break down and so there a series of starting points as you get closer to the original singularity depending on which theory you are using.

 

[alphachapmtl]

Instead of thinking of space expanding, I find it better to think of matter contracting. If all galaxies gets smaller, they will become further away from each other, as if space was expanding.
I think those two points of view are equivalent, but maybe they are not (any comments?).
So, going back in time, we see matter expanding until it spans the whole of space, all matter overlapping each other.

 

[Rick88]

Instead of thinking of space expanding, I find it better to think of matter contracting. I think those two points of view are equivalent, but maybe they are not (any comments?).

it's not really the same.
Using your thought then the size of the Universe has never changed?

Also matter doesn't contract.
How can you contract an atom, or even better, an electron?

 

[NobodySpecial]

we see matter expanding until it spans the whole of space,

No - a (the) very important point about the big bang is that it wasn't an explosion of matter into empty space. There was no space or time - it was space and time itself being created.

It helps to picture it as a black dot expanding out onto white paper - with the stars and galaxies then forming inside the black part.

 

[36grit]

So, the acceptable theory to date is that: there was no space surrounding the entity.
well, I guess with nothing on the otherside we'll just keep expanding and expanding well into the, um, nothing.

 

[Rick88]

So, the acceptable theory to date is that: there was no space surrounding the entity.
well, I guess with nothing on the otherside we'll just keep expanding and expanding well into the, um, nothing.

That is what seems to be happening.
But in theory it is not the only possibility.

 

[36grit]

That is what seems to be happening.
But in theory it is not the only possibility.

Is that to say that nothing is a possibility?

 

[Rick88]

There is no such thing as "nothing".
And the Universe isn't expanding into anything. The space-time is expanding. That's it. It's not contained into anything.

But what I meant to say is that at the present moment the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, so it seems that it will just keep expanding. Forever, perhaps.
But it could have not worked out that way.
It might have stopped expanding so that it remained of the same size forever or it could have started contracting.
Just because there is "nothing" outside doesn't mean it has to keep expanding.R.

 

[Chronos]

It's complicated. Einstein was convinced spacetime is the result of gravitatonal fields and this premise appears well supported by observational evidence. In that sense, there is literally nothing to prevent the universe from creating more spacetime.

 

[alphachapmtl]

I still think it's easier to view matter and galaxies contracting rather than space expanding.
Also, if we consider space-time (instead of space), it is fixed, immutable, not a function of time. Instead of wondering how space is a function of time, it may be easier to ask about the fixed geometry of space-time, specially considering that relativity has shown us that time and space can not be separated (there is no universal time).

 

[Tanelorn]

Penrose estimated the universe to be 10 to power 30 times the size of the observable Universe. I presume space and time (whatever they are) have no restrictions on size and can be infinite?

 

[36grit]

If we are were expanding into nothing then, then we are probably expanding into nothing now. Is that to say, We are in the middle of a black hole?
That's the closest comparison I can think of.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Imagine a large rubber sheet (illustrating the universe), now paint the surface black to represent density. Therefore when it isn't stretched the Universe is in maximal density. Now stretch the rubber sheet, as you will see the molecule chains in the sheet move further apart (space stretching) and the particles of paint on top do also (analogous to the universe becoming less dense) making the sheet "less black".

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Black Holes are large curvatures of space-time (singularity), since space-time is hypothetically non-existent outside of the Universe a black hole can't exist in that region.

 

[36grit]

No way. No way all the mass in the universe was squeezed into the space of a pea. Just look at the neutron star. The electron is sqeezed down inside the nucleaous of the atom and they're still pretty big. If you squeezed them anymore they'd collapse into a gravity star, or black hole, if you prefer. I'll never believe it. I can believe a chain reaction of some kind but not that everything was just squeezed together.
I'll have to agree with rick in his statement "There's no such thing as nothing". At the very least we are expanding into the future. This is not a theory, just plain ole common sense.

 

[NobodySpecial]

just plain ole common sense.

Common sense - that which is arrived at from everday experience.

If your day-to-day experience involves the creation of singularities in space time at near infinite densities, hyper-inflation and the summoning of space and time from a quantum vacuum then you will probably have a good intuitive understanding of the big bang.

 

[zonde]

Instead of thinking of space expanding, I find it better to think of matter contracting. If all galaxies gets smaller, they will become further away from each other, as if space was expanding.
I think those two points of view are equivalent, but maybe they are not (any comments?).
So, going back in time, we see matter expanding until it spans the whole of space, all matter overlapping each other.

They are equivalent. I you have two scales that you compare and you have nothing else it doesn't matter which one is fixed and which one is changing.

But I believe this spacetime expansion has noting to do with original Einstein's idea as he was talking about Doppler shift (expansion of matter) not spacetime expansion.

 

[36grit]

They are equivalent. I you have two scales that you compare and you have nothing else it doesn't matter which one is fixed and which one is changing.

But I believe this spacetime expansion has noting to do with original Einstein's idea as he was talking about Doppler shift (expansion of matter) not spacetime expansion.

I don't think matter is expanding. If it is then it's not at the same rate. I do think that gravity stars (black holes) shrink. They reinflate when their "feeding".

 

[DaveC426913]

There are plenty of fora out there to discuss unfounded ideas about cosmology. This is not one of them.

There is too much non-science in this thread to try to correct.

Any statements you are writing that start with "Well I think..." please just instead take a few moments to read up on currently understood science.

Science: It's not just a good idea; it's the rulez.

 

[zonde]

There are plenty of fora out there to discuss unfounded ideas about cosmology. This is not one of them.

There is too much non-science in this thread to try to correct.

Any statements you are writing that start with "Well I think..." please just instead take a few moments to read up on currently understood science.

Science: It's not just a good idea; it's the rulez.

What is wrong with different perspective on the same mathematical formalism?
Change in coordinate system to make more convenient perspective on physical facts is essentially what the relativity is about.

Question of this thread is whether for particular model there is one to one correspondence with mainstream model. How this is a non-science?

 

[DaveC426913]

What is wrong with different perspective on the same mathematical formalism?
Change in coordinate system to make more convenient perspective on physical facts is essentially what the relativity is about.

Question of this thread is whether for particular model there is one to one correspondence with mainstream model. How this is a non-science?

That's fine. It's some of the other more fanciful posts that are of concern.

 

[disregardthat]

I am trying to understand the concept of the big bang, but I have some questions I would really like to have answered. The theory is that the universe went from some sort of primordial state with an extreme density, but in this primordial state, how would the whole of the universe look like? I don't mean what constitutes the observable universe, but the spacetime as a whole. Wouldn't it be infinite in the sense it is now even then? Depending on the cosmological constant, its curvature would either flat, or have negative or positive curvature. Is it true that the closer to the big bang, the more positive curvature it had, and hence starting out from some singularity in this sense? Imagining the big bang as an explosive inflation without the extreme density of the primordial state, would it be possible that the universe could have been flat all along?