Was the Big Bang simply "Distant Traffic"?

[ct2193]

We keep hearing that "It all started with the Big Bang" and how "Everything was compressed into an infinitely small dot" and suddenly it expanded. Personally, I've wondered if this is more of a misinterpretation of distance, just as the headlights of heavy traffic on the highway looks like a single dot when it's far away. From this perspective, the "Big Bang" would simply be the first entrance of "Stuff" into the observable universe.

 

[weirdoguy]

We keep hearing that "It all started with the Big Bang" and how "Everything was compressed into an infinitely small dot" and suddenly it expanded.

This is all just pop-science nonsense. Big Bang theory sais nothing like "it all started with" nor "eveything was compressed into infinitely dense point". Use search button, there are plenty of threads here about those misconceptions

 

[PeroK]

We keep hearing that "It all started with the Big Bang" and how "Everything was compressed into an infinitely small dot" and suddenly it expanded.

That's a popularisation of the theory and you are right to mistrust it in this literal form. The Big Bang, as a theory, is supported by the equations of General Relativity, and this in turn is supported by the evidence of observations of the universe.

Running the theory backwards leads to a so-called singularity, which means that the mathematics (and hence the theory itself) breaks down - before the universe shrinks to a single point. In other words, the Big Bang theory doesn't take us all the way back and there must be a missing theoretical piece that we haven't discovered yet.

 

[diogenesNY]

Have a Look at the following paper, _Misconceptions About the Big Bang_ by Charles Lineweaver and Tamara Davis, published as a March 2005 Scientific American article.

https://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

It does a great job of breaking down the actual model from the popular mis-visions of what has come to be known as 'Big Bang.'

Very readable and does a lucid and concise job of explaining the model and correcting many of the popularizations in fine form.

Highly recommended.

diogenesNY

 

[Orodruin]

Have a Look at the following paper, _Misconceptions About the Big Bang_ by Charles Lineweaver and Tamara Davis, published as a March 2005 Scientific American article.

https://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

Too bad they, as many others who really should know better, got the redshift question wrong. (Whether a redshift is attributed to Doppler or expanding space and/or how much is attributed to each is a coordinate issue.)

 

[Orodruin]

After reading parts of it I must agree with them. Astronomers also frequently get things wrong. This is also true when they claim that others get things wrong and overinterpret coordinate dependent statements as hard facts that cannot be disputed or interpreted differently in different coordinates.