Big bang

Hello friends,
I have heard that all the law of nature breaks down at the instant of Big Bang?Why? And I have too heard that Time didn't exist before the big bang.So Is that mean Space-time was created by the big bang? I have another Question. Is the expandation of space-time causes the matter to accelerate or Is the matter that is accelerating and not space-time? I hope you have understood what am i really talking about!! Please help me with this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem is that there is no "big bang". The ability of mathematics to describe things in physics breaks down at a finite distance in the past, given the standard cosmological model. So there is only speculation as to the origin of the universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ PhysBang,
If there isn't any big bang,then why does all other galaxies moving away from us? What gave the energy for them to accelerate? Is there any other reason? I am sure the acceleration of galaxies is proved..I have heard of red shifts...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You misunderstood the answer.

The name, "Big Bang" was given by someone that disagreed with the theory, but the name became popular.
What Physbang was saying was that there was a rapid expansion of the Early Universe. Physbang may come back to answer you and I've noticed that poster is very knowledgeable on the topic. This is the model popularly called the Big Bang.

Currently, the model of expansion deals with a hypothetical Dark Energy. No one is entirely sure what the cause is and it's being studied.

As addressed above, our ability to describe the physics of the early universe is based on mathematics we've developed under our current conditions. During the very early universe (By early, I mean milliseconds) the method of mathematically describing events is insufficient to account for that early state.
The reason why is because those early conditions are so far outside of any relative mathematical model- so extreme, if you will- that we've not developed any form of complex math that can resolve those conditions into a working model. It's very similar to our inability to very accurately model the conditions very near a singularity or Black Hole. We can get very close to describing it, but not quite there. Perhaps someday, we will have gathered enough knowledge to formulate that kind of math.

Essentially, yes. Time is a part of Space, if you will. Rather than thinking of time as a flowing river, think of it as particles floating around you. As you move through the particles, your mass/matter creates drag on them. That creates the effect of time. Time is not what is motion, mass and matter is what is moving. Thus: Space-time; as matter moves through space-time, it creates the effect of passage of time. Matter/Mass also warps space-time, creating an effect where how you perceive the passage of time would be different than how an observer standing on Jupiter would perceive the passage of time.

In this case, no.

Only the vast empty expanses of space-time between galaxies and galactic clusters is expanding. Matter is not acted upon in any measurable way because the force of gravity overwhelms the force of expansion near matter. So, we can only observe the expansion as affecting empty regions of space.

 

@Neverfly
So You mean space-time expanding and not matter right??!!

 

Friend,the above space-time curvature...Isn't that mentioned in relativity???

 

@neverfly
Thank you for explaining and clearing my doubt!!!

 

Correct. However, point of interest- Spacetime is not expanding near the Earth, for example. Even the presence of matter is enough to overwhelm the effect, the measurement would be negligible. Gravity binds.
Spacetime is expanding only in "gravitationally flat" regions.

Vigorously.

 

But Andromida galaxy is where our Milky Way galaxy is heading and in a few thousad light years our galaxy will hit the Andromida and they will combine into something else. Here's what it will look like:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...xoCABw&usg=AFQjCNGp1eBo3tI-7-2D6gloC1dOW-PLMQ

 

"Big Bang Theory" is a name used to describe the expansion of the universe as described by general relativity, quantum field theory, and thermodynamics. However, these theories break down when we try to describe certain things. Thus the Big Bang theory doesn't really include a big bang. The name was added by an opponent to the theory that wished to create a straw man to argue against. He did a good job.

 

-dittos- ash64449 and PhysBang:

Excellent questions and explanations. Unfortunately, 'us' delving into such realms as pre-big bang conditions, questioning whether a big bang actually occurred, how the universe is evolving (e.g., expansion mechanisms) or positing conceptual ideas (with no math proofs in-hand) that are contrary to currently-accepted thinking are frowned-upon in this Forum - IMPO, of course - just a personal 'gripe'.!

 

No.

The Alchemy of the Heavens: Page 113: Fred Hoyle states that he coined "big bang" in 1950. Although he certainly used the term that year, he appears to have first used it in 1949. As Hoyle explains on pages 113-14, and as is misreported in many places, Hoyle did not intend "big bang" to be derogatory: "There was no way in which I coined the phrase to be derogatory; I coined it to be striking, so that people would know the difference between the steady state model and the big bang model."

http://kencroswell.com/errata.html

 

The big bang is a myth. There was very probably no big bang.

Many people think the universe must have come from something but I don't think the universe came from anything, I believe the universe has always existed. The universe could not have come from nothing of course because I think it's impossible for a universe (or anything real for that matter) to come from nothing.

So my best attempt at describing the universe and where it came from that I could come up with is this:

An infinite, eternal, unchanging nothing that has always existed and has always contained a finite but unbounded closed universe that constantly changes but is itself eternal.

My source came from here:

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where universe from.htm

 

Well if you think so, that should be enough for the scientifc community to abandon a well supported and predictive theory. After all, if you think so, what more is needed?

 

Then prove to me how something physical can come from nothing?

Because in the real world I don't see things like tennis balls or baseballs just popping into existence from nothing? If material things can come from nothing then why not a tennis ball?

 

Your 'real world' is an extremely limited, low energy, low velocity, low mass world. You base your intuitions and judgements on the things you perceive, but the things you perceive are only the smallest part of existence.

In the quantum realm, virtual particles flash into existence for a brief instant, and then annihalate each other, returning the borrowed energy back to the vacuum.

If the Net Energy of the universe is zero, and it may well be, then there is nothing in the laws of physics which says that the universe can't be a quantum energy fluctuation expanded to an enourmous size. You think physical, and you think of tennis balls. Think of energy instead. And bear in mind that the 'real world' is mostly unseen by you, and operates according to laws which would insult your 'common sense'.

 

The larger the energy, the quicker it's existence comes to an end. \(\Delta E \Delta t > h\), \(\Delta t = h/\Delta E\). The energy of the big bang is still here, 13.7 billion years later. It doesn't act like a quantum fluctuation.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say that the big bang came from a quantum fluctuation. Space-time comes from the big bang, and has been expanding ever since. So the quantum vacuum must have been here before the big bang. So what was the speed of light in the vacuum before space-time existed? Was there a pre-existing space-time continuum? Or was there a space that was not limited by the speed of light, some kind of hyperspace?

 

Doesn't anyone have an explanation? If the big bang was just some quantum fluctuation, then there had to have been a pre-existing quantum vacuum. So what was the speed of light in this pre-existing quantum vacuum? Is this a clue to the existence of a hyperspace?

This seeming paradox might be an incredible discovery of the existence of a pre-existing universe.