B Was the universe is infinitely large at the big bang?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Green dwarf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang Universe
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of the universe's size at the time of the Big Bang, with participants debating whether the universe was infinitely large or not. It is clarified that while the observable universe was extremely small, the entire universe could still be infinite, as suggested by its flat geometry. Misconceptions about the Big Bang's implications for the universe's size are addressed, emphasizing the distinction between the observable universe and a potentially infinite universe. Participants acknowledge the mathematical complexity of these concepts, noting that while they are straightforward mathematically, they present physical paradoxes. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the ongoing challenges in visualizing and understanding the infinite nature of the universe.
Green dwarf
Messages
53
Reaction score
4
My understanding is that the universe seems quite likely to be flat, and therefore infinite. Following an infinitely large object back in time to the big bang, it would never become finite. (However many times you divide infinity by 2, it is still infinity.)
We tend to picture the big bang as something starting smaller than an atom. But that would be just our observable universe. The whole universe, (the totality of matter, the omniverse?) would have to have been infinitely large always.
Am I misguided here?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Green dwarf said:
We tend to picture the big bang as something starting smaller than an atom.

No we don't. It's a common misconception. The answer to your question is yes, if Universe is spatially infinite now, then it was during the BB.
 
Thanks weirdoguy. Could you enlarge on the 'No we don't', because that surprised me. Was our observable universe not at some time very small?
 
We have tracked universe's evolution back to a very hot, very dense volume many, many orders of magnitude smaller than an atom. Our physics is consistent back to that point, yes.
 
Green dwarf said:
My understanding is that the universe seems quite likely to be flat, and therefore infinite
This does not necessarily follow, in case the universe has some exotic topology. For example, a torus is intrinsically flat, but finite.
Other than that, you're not misguided - as weirdoguy said, if the entire universe is infinite now, then it must have been infinite always.

weirdoguy said:
No we don't. It's a common misconception.
If you read the sentence that immediately follows, you'll see the OP was referring to the observable universe only. Which is correct.
 
Bandersnatch said:
If you read the sentence that immediately follows, you'll see the OP was referring to the observable universe only. Which is correct.

Yes, of course. I misunderstood the OP :sorry:
 
DaveC426913 said:
We have tracked universe's evolution back to a very hot, very dense volume many, many orders of magnitude smaller than an atom. Our physics is consistent back to that point, yes.

I cannot equate that with still being spatially infinite, am I missing something?
 
pinball1970 said:
I cannot equate that with still being spatially infinite, am I missing something?

It's just the difference between the observable universe (which can be given a size) and the spatially infinite universe, which can be given a density, but it's size is always infinite.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
PeroK said:
It's just the difference between the observable universe (which can be given a size) and the spatially infinite universe, which can be given a density, but it's size is always infinite.

Thanks Perok. Not the simplest concept in the world for me to try and visualise.
 
  • #10
pinball1970 said:
Thanks Perok. Not the simplest concept in the world for me to try and visualise.

Mathematically it's quite straightforward. But, physically, it does seem paradoxical. Not just the expansion, but the concept that space, matter, galaxies go on for ever.
 
  • #11
PeroK said:
Mathematically it's quite straightforward. But, physically, it does seem paradoxical. Not just the expansion, but the concept that space, matter, galaxies go on for ever.

Mathematically straightforward to you fresh 42 Dale Phinds and others is a tad daunting to me. That's why I'm here though.
 
  • #12
pinball1970 said:
Mathematically straightforward to you fresh 42 Dale Phinds and others is a tad daunting to me. That's why I'm here though.

##\mathbb{R}^3## shouldn't be too difficult a concept, mathematically. After all, if the number line is not infinite, then there must be a largest number. But, how can some number ##N## be the largest? You can always add ##1##, surely, to get ##N+1##.

So, ##\mathbb{N}, \mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R}^2, \mathbb{R}^3## must all be infinite in size.

In that sense, an infinite flat universe shouldn't be a particularly difficult concept.

But, these infinite mathematical sets have certain properties that make them conceptually difficult as a model for the physical universe. You get ideas like the Bolzmann Brain, for example, which may be a paradox; or may be sheer nonsense! But, in an infinite universe, these paradoxical issues are difficult to ignore.
 

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
28
Views
6K
Replies
47
Views
641
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top