[justaskin (OP)]

Usually when there is an explosion it leaves a big hole with nothing in
it.So if the big bang happened should there not be some area in the universe
with nothing in it.
I mean if the current stuff in the universe is expanding out away from everything
else in the universe what is now occupying  the space the stuff occupied before it
moved to the space it is currently occupying and what will occupy the space the stuff
currently occupies when the stuff has moved on.
Or have we already detected the area of the big bang.

Cheers
justaskin

[Flyberius]

Already been asked hasn't it?

Its like dots on a bolloon and stuff.  Its deep.

[Mr. Scientist]

Hi,

The big bang does not imply a visible hole as such. In fact, relatively speaking, the big bang happened everywhere, and because of this, we cannot trace a ''middle to the universe.''

Instead, if our universe began in a ground state, it would have a unique radius or time or even beginning, meaning, it would not have begun as a singular region. Instead it would have had a structure much like a black hole, with a topological opening in its center, we call a wormhole. But if our universe began in an excited state, it would have had at its center a singularity, and it can, and would emit energy, resulting in a catastrophic depletion of energy in some point in its future; much like a quantum leap.

[yor_on]

Isn't it 'us' that are the 'hole'

[justaskin (OP)]

Hi,

The big bang does not imply a visible hole as such. In fact, relatively speaking, the big bang happened everywhere, and because of this, we cannot trace a ''middle to the universe.''

I was not thinking of a hole as such but an area of the universe that is vacant as every thing that was created by the big bang
has moved a way from there.As in expanding universe.
I have seen it explained elsewhere that the big bang happened everywhere but then again it seems that the current popular explanation
is that it started at a point.
If it did start everywhere why is it expanding.After all if it happened everywhere as in EVERYWHERE/INFINITY shouldn't the universe
be much bigger than it is?.Also would this not add some weight to the steady state model.
As for creation,the making something type not the religious type,could not the big bang be seen as a form of creation and
if as so many people here on the forum have said we have no idea of what happened  before the big bang is it not possible that
a creator of some kind could have been responsible?.

Cheers
justaskin

[Mr. Scientist]

No. You can't say there is some point where everything is moving from, because that would imply some universal center. Instead, scientists say that the big bang happened everywhere, and this removes that problem which is a relativistic assumption. You could say, from this explanation, that the earth certainly is the center of the universe, if you are also willing to accept that everywhere else is as well!!!!

The steady state model lost its weight in the discovery of microwave background energy... as for speculating God and the big bang, that remains to philosophy alone, and not really science.

[yor_on]

The Big Bang could very well be a localized point.
The problem being twofolded:)
Firstly that 'point' would only exist after the BB started as it before didn't exist anything.
No dimensions we know of, no time.

Secondly, due to the 'inflation' wherein our universe expanded to it's current size as well as the later expansion (well almost:)
That 'point' was soon lost.

But thinking of it.
If there was no expansion? 
Would one be able to backtrack the 'inflation' as it happened quite uniformly according to the background radiation?
And isn't our 'expansion' a uniform one too.
It expands everything uniformly away from everything so to speak:)

Awh sh*
Now I'm confused again.

[justaskin (OP)]

No. You can't say there is some point where everything is moving from, because that would imply some universal center. Instead, scientists say that the big bang happened everywhere, and this removes that problem which is a relativistic assumption. You could say, from this explanation, that the earth certainly is the center of the universe, if you are also willing to accept that everywhere else is as well!!!!

The steady state model lost its weight in the discovery of microwave background energy... as for speculating God and the big bang, that remains to philosophy alone, and not really science.

So are you saying the big bang was definitely the way the universe was created?.

Notice I never mentioned a God for good reason I don't believe in such a being.But thats not to say some kid in a parallel universe
playing with his chemistry set did not create our universe.And if a universe could be created in such a way would science not be
interested in it?.

Cheers
justaskin

[Mr. Scientist]

The big bang model, is the closest model we have to our experimental means. It agrees well with observation, and until we find more evidence concerning this interpretation, we will just have to settle with the theoretical side of it. However, i heard recently that they where going to measure polarized photons from the deeper regions of the universe, and this will proove one factor of big bang, and that is the inflationary period where the universe expanded faster-than-light. If the inflationary period is proven incorrect, then big bang SURELY IS incorrect.

[DoctorBeaver]

Don't forget there are 2 theories that postulate an expanding universe. First, there is the Big Bang where everything started from a point. Then there is the Big Bounce of Loop Quantum Cosmology which says that the universe expands, contracts, and then expansd again continuously. LQC doesn't address the very beginning though.

[Mr. Scientist]

Yes, also known as the Ekpyrotic Theory of Cosmology.

In physics, the multiverse theory is a difficult theory to accept - well, at least it is for me - the only way i could describe my contempt for it is the way Einstein rejected the path of Quantum Mechanics. The reason for this is simple. I do not believe the Universe can so easily split off into as many universe-possibilities as there are actualities, every time something comes to do anything - especially in the case of ourselves.

   Fair enough, the theory of Parallel Universes could answer many gaping questions - questions such as, 'why the wave function exits', and why and how our universe selected these 'dimensional conditions', of one time dimension and three spatial dimensions. Of course - it could also explain consciousness itself! Let me explain: The universes are all positioned upon each other like a ''fine mesh'', we call 'superpositioning'. A single object in space will extend into infinity through these universes - but occupies the exact same space. Thus, a single mind in this universe would extend onto infinity, also sharing the same space. Then consciousness is explained to arise out of the split - whenever our minds posit a question or experience, the universe must split out into as many possibilities that can exist through the wave function.

   What if only two universes existed?

   This question was called an 'Oxymoron' - it seemed to present a contradiction in terms - two universes simply couldn't exist... Though our universe might be one of an infinite amount, i am amused however in something called the 'Ekpyrotic Cosmological Theory' (ECT): What if our universe has a siemese twin? This is what ECT states. Its perfectly identical, conjoined, yet separate twin is connected to our universe through a force that allows it to bounce off our own universe to such a distance away, it will finally pull back to collide with our own universe.

   When they do collide, it will trigger another Big Bang all over again, spilling all that potential consciousness, matter and energy through the wave function, no matter how vanishingly small their probabilities lye. This Big Bang will engulf both universes simultaneously - and that must mean the great sea of consciousness itself - creating everything all over again - but with a slight quantum difference; a decrease in the 'Cosmological Constant'. You might remember the Cosmological Constant.

   The Cosmological Constant was created by Albert Einstein in 1915, in an attempt to design a universe that was static. However, the discovery of the Hubble red shift, the measuring of distances between objects in space showed that the universe was in fact expanding. He thus cast the Cosmological Constant to the side, calling it his 'biggest blunder.' However, in the discovery of recent observations of an accelerating universe, astrophysicists where able to bring the Cosmological Constant back into play.

   The real problem with the Cosmological Constant today, is that it is around 10^20 times smaller than what should be predicted from Big Bang... However, if the Siamese twin theory is correct, then the value in the Cosmological Constant appears to be smaller because the collisions of the two universes have brought it gradually down - thus, one might imagine the Big Bang to have occurred many, many times.
   
   Right now, physicists are devising new theories on how to experimentally test this. In the writing of this book, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, and Neil Turok of the University of Cambridge believe that it might be possible to experimentally test this theory through the discovery of the so-far-unseen 'gravitational waves,' that are thought to ripple ever outwards throughout all of spacetime. However, though the big bang states that these gravitational waves are thought to pervade spacetime, the two scientists believe that they are rare, to say the least. 'Ekpyrotic' comes from the Greek word, 'conflagration.' It was coined by Steinhardt, Ovrut, Turok and Khoury in the DAMPT in Cambridge, England.

   The Ekpyrotic Theory is directly linked to String Theory - therefore, our universe and our twin will be classified as 'branes', instead of parallel universes though there is very little difference between the two expressions. Before our universe collided with our siemese twin, our universe was completely frozen. When the brane collided into our own universe it sent the gravitational waves rippling, exciting fluctuations in temperature and density - and above all, it gave rise to matter - a soup of quark gasses. This theory is being recognized as quite a serious theory by physicists, because it seems to be a better alternative to both the standard interpretation of the big bang coupled with cosmic inflation, (when the universe spurted out everything faster-than-light).

   The difference with the standard model of big bang and the big bang described by the Ekpyrotic Theory is that it wasn't a big bang at all - paradoxically enough. The cataclysm of big bang in this theory rather states that there was an event when the immense energy in the infant universe quite literally drove it to expansion.

   Paul Steinhardt, mentioned just previously say's, ‘'our universe begins in a static, featureless state, that persisted for eons.''

   ''But how long are we talking about,'' One might ask. The truth is we cannot be sure. We could be talking numbers anything like trillions upon trillions of years. The Ekpyrotic Theory though, isn't too different to the usual parallel universe theory - as each universe exists in a superpositioning as myriad sheets all placed among each other. Accordingly, there was a collision; and this set everything in motion.

   As Ovrut explains, ' It's a beautiful idea because it says that all of the particles we see actually arise from one object... a string.'' Weird this isn't it? All these strings’ particles contained in the universe and all universes actually constitute one single mega-string! The only way to describe this is by analogously describing this single string as being like a normal string of cotton. Like any fabric weaved into one single string, it is made up itself of much smaller string, all finely interwoven into each, causing them to join into one single woven string. The strings that represent gravity in this universe can easily flow into another brane, and this is how they all couple to each other. 
   .

How Might We Detect Gravitational Waves? 

   Finding their presence, whether they are frequent or rare, is going to be difficult. The 'Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory' (LIGO) in America, belonging to NASA scientists, are now searching for the waves - by the possible phenomena of Black Hole collisions.

   Black Holes themselves have so far been undetectable, but Relativity and Quantum Theory predicts their existences. They are exotic, perfectly spherical dark or glowing objects in space that contain so much mass that they can distort spacetime to such a degree, it practically drags it round with it at the speed of light. These distortions are so strong; they are even able to slow a photon, a particle of light right down to zero-speed. Thus, even the fastest known particle cannot escape its wrath.

   The collision of two Black Holes would shudder space and time - similar to the conditions of a quaking big bang, and the collision would send out ripples of gradational waves at the speed of light from the location of impact. Because of this, in order to find the illusive waves, we will have to keep our eyes to the stars.       

[DoctorBeaver]

Ah yes, I should have said 3 theories. My apologies.

LQC and the ekpyrotic theory differ in 1 important respect. In the ekpyrotic scenario the universe collapses to a singularity before re-expanding. In LQC that doesn't happen. There is a shut-off point that stops collapse to a singularity.

[Mr. Scientist]

Well, i personally see simularities between the two.

[Mr. Scientist]

(Which you said, sorry)

[yor_on]

Interesting.

It seems like topological solutions is very much it?
Like those 'branes'.

I have to admit that I was wondering if one dimensional strings, by any topological 'knots', would be able to build in/a 3D,
The thing being here, it seems to me, if they could by any 'topological' chance create what we see as 'matter'?

It's a very strange idea, one dimensional strings.

[justaskin (OP)]

Thanks Guys
I guess this is another one we can put in the WDK(We Don't Know)category.
I guess if we can have three theories to why and how it might have happened we can have
theories as to why it may not have happened.
Maybe the fact that we have not been able to find the hole supports did not happen side.

Cheers
justaskin

[yor_on]

Ah but the hole is what you are living in
We are the BB.

[socratus]

  Black hole and Big bang.
1.
A black hole is a theoretical region of space in which the
gravitational field  is so powerful that nothing can escape.
2.
Hawking Radiation theorizes that black holes do not,
in fact, absorb all matter absolutely; they give off some
return matter.
3.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
 (all elementary particles and all quarks and their
girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of
 waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,  muons…
gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a ‘single point ‘

The reason of this unity is gravitational force.
4.
How does this ‘single point ‘ created if the matter
can escape from any strong gravitational force?
==========..
S.

[Mr. Scientist]

It is not so much we accept that matter escaped this single point, but rather needed to because their was an infinite density. This violated Hesenbergs Uncertainty inherent, and thus, matter could not remain stacked up like this.

[DoctorBeaver]

Just a pedantic point. No matter escaped as initially the universe was too hot for matter to have formed.