Was Space Present Before the Big Bang or Did It Expand with the Universe?

[Harveyf]

John; now I understand you completely.

 

[4newton]

The Big Bang (BB) theory states that the universe started from a small point or singularity and that all the energy of our universe, in all forms, expanded outward in all directions. Observation indicates that the universe, on the large scale, is uniform to a high degree in all directions. That is, all-observable matter and energy, microwave radiation, is evenly distributed in all directions.

All the contents of the universe are transitioning outward at the same rate and form a sphere with a hollow core. Our experience tells us that the universe around us is three-dimensional and has another component of time. To resolve our observation and experience we must expect the universe to be a three-dimensional spatial sphere, or hypersphere. All actions in the universe must stay inside of the hypersphere, follow the curve of the sphere. All light then must travel around the sphere. There is no spatial direction back to the BB.

The observation of the red shift of distant objects indicates that there is no preferential direction of motion and therefore the direction of the transition outward from the BB is not a transition in any spatial direction or spatial dimension.

The speed of light is the only known limit of the rate of the expansion outward from the BB. This rate is the maximum rate of transition of all things in the universe. The expansion outward from the BB appears to us as time.

As we look around the curve of the hypersphere we see light just arriving that started in the past from distant objects. The light from the distant objects are is shifted because the expansion of the hypersphere moves them away from us at a rate that is proportional to their distance from us. The most distant observation to this time is the microwave background radiation MBR. This radiation is shifted all the way down to the microwave frequency.

Because the universe is expanding outward at a transition rate equal to the speed of light any light waves coming to us from one radian around the sphere would be red shifted to zero. This is the point that the transition from the BB equals the rate of the expansion of the hypersphere.

Knowing the rate of expansion outward from the BB you can then find the size of the universe and how old it is. You only need to know the distance to an object and its red shift.

 

[Harveyf]

Thank you 4Newton: When you speak of a hypersphere, and that the BB began the expansion in all directions at an equal rate, how do you know that content matter is contained in this hypersphere, rather than continuing its expansion in all directions within a space that has no "curves?" What is it about the "Red Shift" that leads to a theory of a hypersphere construct to the visible universe, rather than just a limitless, endless, ever growing [ever "stretching"] sphere of containment of matter? BTW, do you happen to know the size of the universe, and how old it is [I should ask what is the latest estimate on the answer to these questions from the scientific community?].

 

[4newton]

>Thank you 4Newton: When you speak of a hypersphere, and that the BB began the expansion in all directions at an equal rate, how do you know that content matter is contained in this hypersphere, rather than continuing its expansion in all directions within a space that has no "curves?"<

If the spatial dimension extended from where we are today back to the BB it would not be a BB it would be the Big Fountain. The transition outward from the BB would then be part of the spatial dimension and you would see a preferential direction in the spatial dimension indicated by a larger red shift in one direction and a smaller red shift or blue shift in the opposite direction. The transition out from the BB must not produce any effects predicted by Special Relativity SR, for example an increase in mass. There are many other things that would also be different.

In short you would observe different effects.

>What is it about the "Red Shift" that leads to a theory of a hypersphere construct to the visible universe, rather than just a limitless, endless, ever growing [ever "stretching"] sphere of containment of matter?<

As stated above you would see a preferential direction.

We recognize the universe as a three dimensional construct and we are able to see red shift in all direction and all angles. This requires the universe to be a hypersphere. A hypersphere is a sphere with a hypersurface and a hypersurface is a construct of one fewer dimensions then all the dimensions under consideration. In this case we are only considering a four dimensional universe, XYZT. The hypersurface is XYZ. The dimension outward from the BB is the T dimension. Just as all dimensions in the XYZ are perpendicular to each other the T dimension is perpendicular to all the XYZ dimensions. You use this fact every day when you drive your car and check your speed. Speed, motion, or velocity is stated as distance with respect to time and if you plot this you always have time perpendicular to distance.

>BTW, do you happen to know the size of the universe, and how old it is [I should ask what is the latest estimate on the answer to these questions from the scientific community?]. <

Most of the scientific community is blind to this concept they started out this way but did not recognize the expansion outward from the BB as a transition in the time dimension. The lack of understanding time is the result of not understanding dimensions. They have a need to make everything more complicated. They are trying to curve space with mass and somehow arrive at the result that the universe is flat. As you can see this concept is simple and violates no experience or observation. This concept does not care if the universe is open, flat, or closed; it does not affect the concept.

I have not made the calculations. Feel free to become part of this idea and do the calculations. The math is simple as stated before. You may end up with a Nobel Prize.
.

 

[Chronos]

I humbly disagree. The 'scientific community' is not blind to any possibility. The math we do know is already so complicated it takes decades to derive even the simplest solutions. To suggest they have simply missed 'simpler' alternatives appears to be ludicrous. However, don't let that stop you from exposing their incompetence.

 

[4newton]

>I humbly disagree. The 'scientific community' is not blind to any possibility.<

I have seen no sign if interest. What do you think of the concept?

>The math we do know is already so complicated it takes decades to derive even the simplest solutions.<

A clue that an idea has limited scope is if the math is too complicated or you need to use tricks to over come weakness in the math.

>To suggest they have simply missed 'simpler' alternatives appears to be ludicrous.<

It is not ludicrous.
Science has been unable to recognize simple solutions many time in the past. Does the sun go around the Earth or is the Earth flat?

>However, don't let that stop you from exposing their incompetence.<

I have no interest in exposing anything.

Not being able to see simple solutions is not incompetence and I do not intend to show disrespect of their skills and abilities.

It is understandable to follow a thread of an idea and to show resolve in trying to develop the idea. This requires some blindness to any idea but you own. NIH not invented here. It seem the more obscure your concept the more it is accepted. No one wants to let anyone else think that you don’t understand an idea.

What bothers me is an almost total disregard for the test of logic and the idea that if the common person can understand an idea it must be wrong. Understanding and discovery of new concepts is the result of inspiration. It is not the result of formulation.

When working on an idea everyone starts to develop tunnel vision. Did you ever try to proof read you own paper only to have someone else look at it and find the obvious errors? It is necessary to take a step back and criticize you own idea and have others look for obvious errors. That is why I am on here.

Up to this point I am disappointed. I have had no disagreement with the theories but I also have had no positive comments. I have had some good questions that have helped me better express the ideas. The problem may be that the idea is sound in logic but difficult to visualize in common experience. This is the same as trying to understand how the Earth could be round from the view of the people in the dark ages.

Up to this time they have no answers to almost all the basic problems. The professional scientist is unable to see profit in these problems. If they try to develop a concept or an idea and they are proved wrong they suffer loss of stature and maybe even money. New ideas are left to people like me that care only about discovery. If I am wrong I have no problem rethinking my idea in fact I demand it of my self. It has been necessary to do so many times. I will never get recognition for any of these ideas they only go to the members of the club, which is only right. I do think however that I get more reward of discovery.
.

 

[russ_watters]

Science has been unable to recognize simple solutions many time in the past. Does the sun go around the Earth or is the Earth flat?

Those ideas were never part of science.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Russ? The geocentric-heliocentric controversy was never part of science? Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, were they not scientists? For that matter weren't Aristarchus, Hipparchus and Ptolemy scientists in their day? Have you read the Almagest? There are at least two modern translations into English. Warning; it's tough.

 

[Phobos]

The Big Bang (BB) theory states that the universe ... expanded outward in all directions.

BBT does not speak of an outward expansion. It's more like the points in the universe are getting farther apart from each other.

All the contents of the universe are transitioning outward at the same rate and form a sphere with a hollow core.

There's no evidence for a higher dimension of space into which our 3D space is embedded. But your later description of this other dimension as Time sounds better.

The speed of light is the only known limit of the rate of the expansion outward from the BB. This rate is the maximum rate of transition of all things in the universe.

It's the maximum rate of motion through space, not the maximum rate of the expansion of space. (e.g., the early inflationary period)

Because the universe is expanding outward at a transition rate equal to the speed of light

Are you referring to the Hubble Constant (our observed expansion of space) or the expansion of the hypersphere you describe away from its center?

 

[Harveyf]

My goodness, but the forum has suddenly erupted with dialectic on ideas in the expansion of space and hyperspheres. I am humbled by the profundity of thought. Then, too, I almost feel grateful that I cannot visualize the mathematical formulae as applied to the quantum physics required to dialogue on these theorum. I trust you will forgive my limited capacity for comprehending the exactitude of the science behind your ruminations, but I would appreciate continuing in this forum, if only to attempt receiving a glimpse of the far-flung territory you are covering in these debates. As the fledgling of the group, even though fast becoming a septigenarian, It has taken me up to this point in my existence to resolve the ramifications of religious exegesis injected into scientific discovery, to where I've been able to exclude such mythology from the reality of existence, and time and space. Now, I wish to enable my mind to grasp the scope of the universe about me in terms I, a most common denominator; human being, that is, can really understand. Since I am not versed in mathematical explanations, I can only hope for a dialogue replete with comprehensible visualizations. If analogy is the best I can hope for to achieve success towards this goal, I humbly ask of my peers in this forum if they can "come down to my level" in order to assist in my quest for wisdom of this knowledge you can impart. So; fellas and girls, tell me again: What, exactly do you mean a hypersphere as opposed to an "open" universe, and why, if there ever was a BB [like it appears there was], cannot the universal space accomodating it be created simultaneously? If, as you intimate, the "red shift" is indicative of material within the universe increasing its velocity away from the "core" of where a BB might have originated [for whatever reason], what might be the ultimate destiny of matter within this reality - and yes, I realize my manner of questioning appears more philosophical than scientific, but I have to believe there is a window of opportunity for both to be expressed so that even a layman like myself can appreciate the explanations on different levels for the benefit of all. Who knows; if an untested mind like mine can grasp the argument, who is to say that even this mind might not succeed in contributing something new to the equation of the why and wherefor of creation? With repsect, and in friendship.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The universe could have come into existence all at once and the size it has now, but atronomical observation from the time of Hubble in the 1920's up till now shows it is expanding, and we can project the rate of expansion back to find out when zero volume occurred. The fillip that has been added in the last few years is that the rate of expansion is increasing (shown be several lines of investigation). so of course that affects our estimate of the time since zero volume. Current estimate is 13.5 billion years.

 

[Harveyf]

Thank you, selfAdjoint. Thus; given that thirteen and a half billion years is the latest estimate for what you call, "zero volume," I take that to mean that the BB occurred at that moment in time, thrusting from a seemingly central core all of the necessary ingredient material that makes up the universe as we know it. My question then, which I originally postulated was, when this material began its expansion, was the space; the "black" of it, so to speak, already existant, or was it created along with the expanding matter? To put it another way, in using the balloon analogy, the dots upon the surface of the balloon's fabric expand as air is introduced into the balloon...is the fabric itself being created as part of that expansion, or did the space [the balloon's surface or in universal terms, the "empty"] already exist, awaiting matter's introduction into it in the BB?? More importantly, am I missing some absolute in physics which makes my question moot, or am I lacking in a scientific principle which makes my analogy errant? Thanks for your patience.

 

[RingoKid]

John

the other thread is moderated and it wouild seem reserved for uber boffins. I didn't know that or read the instructions before posting it, seems neither did you as your post has now registered 3 times...

thanks for you reply John, I posted one back . It hasn't registered yet but it might. I would repost it but i can't remember what i posted so hopefully it'll turn up in a day or so

cheers

here is the link for anyone interested...

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=40273

 

[RingoKid]

BTW I been posting stuff like this for a while seeking some sort of feedback...

a universe trapped between a leading edge brane and a trailing edge brane thus resembling a universe embedded in a bubble skin 13.7 billion light years thick...ie, seemingly the time it takes for a photon to travel in a straight line beteween the two branes

and if the leading edge is expanding at lightspeed faster than the trailing edge that would give you your impression of a slow moving photon or time moving faster depending on whether you were looking forward or backward, and the impression of the spacetime hypersphere expanding..ie inflation of the universe

but seeing as how we are trapped in our 3d + 1d(time) bubble universe we can never have an accurate frame of reference to measure anything

 

[RingoKid]

and think ripples in a spherical pond for a multiverse

 

[marcus]

"Time before Time" (no formulas)

Olias has just posted link to a new paper about cosmology
which has no formulas. It is by a good writer named Rudi Vaas.

he does Scientific-American-level articles in popular science magazines
in Germany and also some more academic technical stuff. he's good in science and a good journalist as well

this paper "Time before Time" is a little bit more academic and philosophical than Vaas's popular sci. journalism articles, but it
may nevertheless turn out to be useful.
One nice thing about it is that it is free for download

http://arxiv.org/physics/0408111

It talks about the different visions people have had about the beginnings of the universe, including the new LQG vision in which there is no big bang singularity----he gives references to Bojowald and Ashtekar papers.
(but his discussion is entirely un-mathematical)

 

[Harveyf]

Thank you, Marcus, for your consideration; from what I can see, the essay is most informative, and provides much food for thought. Thank you, again.

 

[John]

4Newton was saying the universe is like a sphere with a hollow core: an expanding bubble, just like my idea. He made the point that if we could go straight back to the center, it would be a Big Fountain.

The one radian idea was murky. I didn’t bother to understand it. I did ACCEPT IT and pursued a model where light can only travel 60 degrees (or so) around the surface of the expanding bubble. It never really worked in my head, but I didn’t get uptight.

All of his other concepts seemed right on. He answered a lot of the same questions I answered, by using the same expanding shell model. First, light has to curve around the shell. The universe isn’t a solid “loaf of bread” expanding in all directions with us in the center. It just seems that way. But as he said, if it were expanding in all directions (and we weren’t in the center) there would be a preferential direction.

(Assuming we are not in the center) the only way it can appear to everyone, everywhere in the universe, that everything is expanding away from them is if they are on the surface of an expanding bubble, or inside of an expanding shell where light follows the curve of the shell.

As for red shift going to 0 at one radian: I believe light has the ability to go around and around the expanding bubble. But we see light that was given off at an earlier time, which means the bubble was smaller then, so the light has followed a spiral path to get to us. It doesn’t matter how many times it has spiraled around.

I agree with 4 Newton’s approach, and agree that when we try to expose the incompetence of others, that’s not the way to discover things.

If this conversation is good, we can also answer Ringokid's questions, who has a glimpse of the same expanding sphere with a hollow core.

 

[Chronos]

The universe is not spherical. That is an urban legend. There is no observational evidence it is composed of spheres surrounded by spheres, or anything resembling that. If you boil that concept down, you end up asserting there is a preferred reference frame. That is not consistent with current theory.

 

[John]

I think this is another "the Earth is flat" conflict. I can't find any reason why an expanding hollow sphere doesn't work. I just naturally came to that conclusion, and so did two other people right here. And there are no other suspicions here of what it could be, except the expanding loaf and the "Big Fountain". There has to be some reference frame. It has to have some kind of physical shape, right? What does current theory say?

The only thing I have heard is, it is kind of flat (sic), but that is also what an expanding hollow sphere would appear to be. This is very similar to the "earth is round" debates.

 

[RingoKid]

Chronos...current M theory would have universes as rippling bubbles floating and interacting in the 11th dimension

I would also have them inside each other

Imagine, if you will bubbles...
expanding as they float around
bumping into other bubbles
and inside of these bubbles
is another bubble expanding
and so on...

...and if all these bubbles
made a musical note,
as they bumped and merged
and expanded,
they created chords and melodies
and so on...

Here's something to think about assuming we are a sphere within a sphere..etc

What if the universe is expanding faster again by repulsion/attraction of a parallel universe. Does that mean another brane collision is imminent from the leading or trailing edge of our bubble skin and will it open up new dimensions or obliterate our universe ?

will we even be conscious of it if say we are transformed into a higher or lower plane existence...ie the energy powering us/our fundamental string building blocks as individuals gets reconstituted so that in the new post brane collision universe i get transmuted into a rock or an enlightened entity that no longer needs a physical presence to justify it's existence ?

reincarnation, nirvana anybody ?

 

[Phobos]

-- mentor hat --

Let's try to keep this topic based on the Big Bang model (including appropriate modifications such as inflation theory), which was the context of the original question.

Discussions of string/M theory can be held in that forum and you can post a link here to that sidebar discussion.

thanks

 

[Phobos]

My goodness, but the forum has suddenly erupted with dialectic on ideas in the expansion of space and hyperspheres. I am humbled by the profundity of thought. Then, too, I almost feel grateful that I cannot visualize the mathematical formulae as applied to the quantum physics required to dialogue on these theorum. I trust you will forgive my limited capacity for comprehending the exactitude of the science behind your ruminations, but I would appreciate continuing in this forum, if only to attempt receiving a glimpse of the far-flung territory you are covering in these debates.

Don't even worry about it. Physics Forums is open to anyone of any technical level who wishes to discuss scientific topics. Our members include high school students with casual interests in science as well as college professors and professional scientists/engineers. Welcome.

 

[4newton]

Phobos Thank you, for responding

BBT does not speak of an outward expansion. It's more like the points in the universe are getting farther apart from each other.

If you accept the idea of a Big Bang and we accept the Big Bang as a fact based on the background radiation. You then observe all the points of the universe moving away from each other. Distant objects = points and red shift = moving away, then you must reconcile the mechanisms that results in the two sets of facts.

It is then possible to make an intuitive leap from other observation in nature.

In an explosion, something like a Big Bang, it is noted that all the material in the explosion is sent out in all direction from the center of the explosion. It is also noted that the various components of the explosion form a sphere as they move out from the center and the components have increasing distance between them as they move out.

It is then reasonable to accept this as the mechanism of the universe BB. Checking this idea with the facts we find no conflict. This then adds support to the BB theory and the concept of all the components of the BB moving outward in all directions and forming a spherical construct of the resulting components.

Having at this time no extended understanding of dimensions we question our knowledge of a spherical surface and our universe. We find a conflict with the two. The spherical surface is two-dimensional and the universe is three-dimensional. The solution was simple. We just allow three-dimensional surfaces. This is a hypersphere with all the components, objects in the universe, moving out from the BB resulting in points getting farther apart.

description of this other dimension as Time sounds better.

You are right. I did not intend to give the idea that the expansion outward from the BB was a spatial dimension. My intent was to state that the dimension of the expansion outward from the BB was a different dimension and then later show that this dimension fits the observation of time and the time dimension.

It's the maximum rate of motion through space, not the maximum rate of the expansion of space. (e.g., the early inflationary period)

I agree that the only observation to date is the maximum transition in the spatial dimension. I did not go into inflation at this time and I think it is best to address this at a later time.

Are you referring to the Hubble Constant (our observed expansion of space) or the expansion of the hypersphere you describe away from its center?

I am referring to the expansion outward from the BB not (our observed expansion of space)

The expansion outward from the BB is of course related to expansion of space. Just as the distance from the center of a balloon to the surface is related to the distance around the balloon. In the same way there is no material of the balloon at the center of the balloon just as there is no material of our universe back at the center where the universe started.

This relationship tells us that the transition outward from the center of the BB cannot exceed the rate of any transition observed in the sphere of the universe.

 

[4newton]

Harveyf thank you for your response. I am now finding your posting and the posting of many others the exchange of ideas I had hoped for on this forum.

I've been able to exclude such (religious interpretation) mythology from the reality of existence, and time and space.

If you stay around for many of the ideas you may need to change you mind.

I have found that free will is the first law of nature. To prove this just talk to anyone and you will find that it is natural to believe against facts. You will also find that no overwhelming fact will convince anyone of the existence or non-existence of God. You will find however that if you believe you will find support and if you don’t have faith you will also find support in physics. Who but God could design a universe that allows this freedom. Of course you may reject that idea.

if there ever was a BB [like it appears there was], cannot the universal space accommodating it be created simultaneously?

Yes your thought is a possibility, but because the number of possibilities are infinite without some thread of connection to reality it will lead no where.

The only relationship I can see to this as a part of creation is in the negative. If physics and nature has told us anything about God and creation is that he does not do direct creation on the large scale. All things seem to flow from a grand plan.

If, as you intimate, the "red shift" is indicative of material within the universe increasing its velocity away from the "core" of where a BB might have originated [for whatever reason], what might be the ultimate destiny of matter within this reality

Because of the direction you are coming from it may help if you think of the process in this manner.
From the eternal ALL the Creator, God, induces an energy differential. This may have been one pulse or it could be a continuing number of cycles. We at this time have no way of knowing. We only know that there was at least one pulse.

The reason may be as simple as God wanting us to (Know, Love, and serve God.). This I see you doing by being on this forum. If you learn about God’s creation you are trying to know Him. You seem to have a mild and kind manner. Which could indicate that you love God. The first two indicate that you are doing the last.

The ultimate destiny is for the energy to fade away into the ALL and to last forever with a record of out deeds.

who is to say that even this mind might not succeed in contributing something new to the equation of the why and wherefore of creation? With respect, and in friendship.

I think you have much more to contribute then you realize. You already have my respect and I do extend my friendship.

 

[4newton]

John thanks you for your response.

The one-radian idea was murky. I didn’t bother to understand it. I did ACCEPT IT and pursued a model where light can only travel 60 degrees (or so) around the surface of the expanding bubble. It never really worked in my head, but I didn’t get uptight.

If you consider the concept in its simple form you may eliminate all but two dimensions and look at a circle. An expanding circle has a radius that is increasing as the circumference is also increasing. Two points on the circle one-radian apart are increasing their distance at the same rate as the radius is increasing.

Redshift is an indicator of the rate of change between two points. If the radius is increasing at a rate equal to the speed of light then two points on the circle that are one-radian apart will be moving apart at a rate equal to the speed of light. Any light going between the two points will never arrive because they a separating at the same rate that the light is traveling. Also the redshift of the light going between the two points has a frequency shift down to zero. You therefore are unable to see anything beyond one-radian around the circle or in the case of the universe one-radian in any direction.

As for red shift going to 0 at one radian: I believe light has the ability to go around and around the expanding bubble. But we see light that was given off at an earlier time, which means the bubble was smaller then, so the light has followed a spiral path to get to us. It doesn’t matter how many times it has spiraled around.

If the transition outward from the BB is at a rate equal to the speed of light, as stated above, then the light from distant objects can only be seen up to one-radian. Observation indicates that redshift for distant objects are in the range close to the speed of light and the z for the background radiation is equal to about 1100. Also if light could go around and around many times you would see the background radiation repeat at a lower frequency each time it went around.

Your observation of the light traveling in a spiral is correct and is the current cause for the dark energy theory. The cause of the redshift not being linear with increasing distance is because the light must travel the circumference of the sphere of the universe compared to the straight line of the transition outward from the BB. This is being interpreted as an accelerating expansion of the universe instead of a correction of the geometry.

 

[4newton]

RingoKid

universe trapped between a leading edge brane and a trailing edge brane thus resembling a universe embedded in a bubble skin 13.7 billion light years thick...ie, seemingly the time it takes for a photon to travel in a straight line between the two branes

Strings and super strings are only a question of dimensional view of matter, forces, and energy and I don’t think they warrant being extended to branes and the construct of the universe. I think this should be a topic of (mass, gravity, and charge) and belongs in the physics area.

 

[John]

In this thread we think it is expanding like a balloon that is being blown up. And science knows the galaxies are accelerating away from each other. I think I can show it is expanding like a balloon, due to the fact the expansion is speeding up.

If you draw galaxies on a balloon, and blow it up at a slightly decelerating rate, as if gravity is gradually slowing it down: you have a picture of how we used to think the universe was expanding.

The galaxies you draw on the balloon would all be getting farther away from each other at the proper rate as you blow up the balloon. It all works smoothly and simply, but a problem is, the galaxies you drew on the balloon would also be getting bigger in size as the balloon expands. If you were to keep erasing the galaxies and making them smaller as the balloon expands, so that the galaxies you drew remain the same size on the surface of the expanding balloon, then you are adding space at a faster rate than the balloon is expanding.

Now the galaxies would be accelerating away from each other.

(I don't think the universe is expanding at the speed of light.)

If a galaxy gives off its light and the light chases around the expanding balloon of space, it might miss us several times, or we see it in a different place, then we see the galaxy's light after it has spiraled around several times, and it has a greater red shift because it is father away in time. Actually we have accelerated away from the light of that galaxy. We are going faster now relative to when it gave off its light.

 

[John]

This model brings up some interesting points on the original question of, What is space?

Is space just there? Or is it a vibrant thing like the surface of an expanding balloon? If the galaxies are accelerating, that says space is a thing that is expanding along with them, but at a slightly different rate.

 

[Harveyf]

When I began to think along these lines which John is alluding to [the fabric of space itself being created, but at a different rate of expansion than the material contained within it], I thought [almost sixty summers ago] the process itself as so outrageous a concept that the suggestion of spatial expansion, and material expansion simultaneously became an intellectually acceptable hypothesis. When you initially consider a "spatial container" of "empty," if you will, "waiting" for that "pulse" of matter to explode within it, "meaning" of "empty" loses relevance, but if you opt for not "empty," but " nothing" [no thing], rather than "empty" as existent [meaning, that you cannot express the "no thing" in rational terms - for "empty" connotes potential], it becomes "fairly" reasonable to begin the hypothesis with "there was this nothing," which cannot be defined nor expressed, from which "something" became; what this "something" was, was a spatial "empty" containing the prerequisites for a BB, which eventually became matter with which to fill the big "empty." As the matter expanded, so did the big "empty" to accommodate its expansion...but not like the balloon analogy which, as was correctly pointed out, would have the dots [galaxies] requiring erasure and reconstruction to fit the model [or balloon's peripheral surface]. And having just read my submission over, I think I need a headache powder...