Unpacking the Big Bang: Understanding the Rapid Expansion of Space

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BilboBombadillo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basics Inflation Rookie
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the Big Bang and the rapid expansion of space, exploring various interpretations and models related to its origin and implications. Participants delve into concepts of singularity, inflation, and the philosophical implications of time and space in cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether space expanded from a single point or from multiple points simultaneously, suggesting different models of the Big Bang.
  • Another participant notes that classical theory suggests a singularity in space and time, but this model is not widely accepted, with expectations that quantum gravity theories will address this singularity.
  • A participant clarifies that the Big Bang singularity is a point in time rather than space, emphasizing the uncertainty regarding the size of this singularity.
  • Several participants assert that the Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space from "nothing," with caution advised in the use of the term "nothing." They argue that spacetime was created at the Big Bang, and thus there was no "before" it.
  • One participant expresses the view that the Big Bang theory predicts the earliest known state of the universe and its expansion, rather than the origin of spacetime itself.
  • Another participant introduces the Anthropic principle, suggesting that events before the Big Bang are irrelevant due to lack of observational consequences, though this view is contested by another who points out a potential confusion with the "no boundary proposal."

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of the Big Bang and its implications for time and space. There is no consensus on the interpretation of the singularity or the implications of the Big Bang theory.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of terms like "nothing" and "simultaneously," as well as the assumptions underlying the various models of the Big Bang and inflation.

BilboBombadillo
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
Ahoy.
Two things ought to be known prior to your reading my terrible post:
1. This is my first post.
2. I don't know very much about this whole business (though time and passion suggests I should)

Considering its my first post, let's start at the beginning:
Now, I've been reading a whole bunch about all this inflation/Big Bang business, and I've failed to grasp the fundamentals, despite finishing multiple books on the topic, and researching it for years (which suggests a retention issue, perhaps, but I digress)
---
Did space expand/explode outward from a single point, and with a boundary - like a beachball? Or did it pop in at infinite places all at once - like infinite people lighting matches in an infinite room of flammable gas? (Insert other options here).

Help, and thanks for it.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Classical theory suggests a point of origin, a singularity in space and time. That model is not terribly popular. It is widely believed a working theory of quantum gravity will eliminate the initial singularity predicted by GR.
 
The big bang singularity is not a point in space, but a point in time. This type of singularity is called "space-like" -- it's really a spatial cross-section at an instant in time. The size of this cross section, whether it be infinitesimal, finite, or infinite, isn't known because this would require knowledge of the global geometry and extent of the universe. As Chronos says, however, the actual singularity itself is likely avoided with a true quantum theory of gravity.
 
The Big Bang was not an explosion but rather a rapid expansion of space simultaneously out of "nothing" (though you have to be very careful using that term in such cases) and there would be no point saying that there was something before that, because space time was created at the Big Bang, there was no "then" then. After the Big Bang comes Inflation which is mostly based on quantum mechanics and since energy-mass equivalence does not apply to the expansion of space itself, the Universe's expansion was so rapid that it would be like a coin inflating to ten million times the width of the Milky Way.
 
Quds Akbar said:
The Big Bang was not an explosion but rather a rapid expansion of space simultaneously out of "nothing" (though you have to be very careful using that term in such cases) and there would be no point saying that there was something before that, because space time was created at the Big Bang, there was no "then" then. After the Big Bang comes Inflation which is mostly based on quantum mechanics and since energy-mass equivalence does not apply to the expansion of space itself, the Universe's expansion was so rapid that it would be like a coin inflating to ten million times the width of the Milky Way.
I was under the impression that the Big Bang theory simply predicts the earliest known state of the universe and its subsequent expansion from that point on, not the actual "spacetime" origin of the universe as we know it.
 
PWiz said:
I was under the impression that the Big Bang theory simply predicts the earliest known state of the universe and its subsequent expansion from that point on, not the actual "spacetime" origin of the universe as we know it.
It does, but any events before that point would be ignored because they would have no observational consequences, this is called the Anthropic principle. If you take the Earth, there is no point north of the north, it does not make sense to say there is no point north of north. It is the same with time, there was no time before that. Now this point of view is not the main point of view of the Big Bang, the main purpose is what you mentioned, but this is one aspect of it.
 
Quds Akbar said:
It does, but any events before that point would be ignored because they would have no observational consequences, this is called the Anthropic principle.
I think you mean "no boundary proposal" -- the anthropic principle is something else entirely.
 
PWiz said:
I was under the impression that the Big Bang theory simply predicts the earliest known state of the universe and its subsequent expansion from that point on, not the actual "spacetime" origin of the universe as we know it.
Indeed, this is what is meant by "big bang cosmology".
 
  • #10
Quds Akbar said:
The Big Bang was not an explosion but rather a rapid expansion of space simultaneously out of "nothing" (though you have to be very careful using that term in such cases)...

The term I would more think one has to be very careful using here is not "nothing", but "simultaneously"...?
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Did cosmic inflation happen everywhere in the Universe?
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
12K
Undergrad Did James Webb cast serious doubt on the Big Bang?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Undergrad Some questions about Cosmic Inflation
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
High School Do we still live in a Big Bang Singularity?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Graduate Is Infinite Inflation Possible After the Big Bang?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
Undergrad Is this explanation of "space itself expanding" correct?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Undergrad Basic Big-Bang ?'s For First Thread
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Undergrad What is the Connection Between Black Holes and the Big Bang?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Big Bang inflation/expansion vs centre of universe vs Speed of light query
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
8K
Undergrad Does 'many worlds', imply worlds before the Big Bang?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K