Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[paarsurrey]

There does not appear to be any evidence for a "who". Therefore proposing one is unwarranted

I don't agree with one.
"Who" requires another type of witnessing as it involves a "Claim" and that is in the "Word" of G-d not, I understand, in the "Work" of G-d (nature/universe).Right, please?

One will agree that no "Big Bang" or expansion of Universe could happen, unless there was a space for it, already created by God, for it. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't agree with one.
"Who" requires another type of witnessing as it involves a "Claim" and that is in the "Word" of G-d not, I understand, in the "Work" of G-d (nature/universe).Right, please?

One will agree that no "Big Bang" or expansion of Universe could happen, unless there was a space for it, already created by God, for it. Right, please?

Regards

And you still have not told us who this "G-d" character is. What is his or her supposed "Word" and why should anyone give it any credence? It appears that all you have are unsupported claims. We need a lot more than that to give those claims any credibility.

And no, just because we do not know something that does not mean that the rational explanation is God. In fact we do not even know if God is possible much less if one exists.

 

[ratiocinator]

One will agree that no "Big Bang" or expansion of Universe could happen, unless there was a space for it, already created...

The BB is an expansion of space, it doesn't requires space to exist first, let alone be 'created' by some god.

 

[alsome]

The problem still is: into what ?

 

[paarsurrey]

The BB is an expansion of space, it doesn't requires space to exist first, let alone be 'created' by some god.

I meant the small singularity that started inflating:

" it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today"*
Right, please?

Regards
____________________
*What Is the Big Bang Theory? | Space

 

[ratiocinator]

The problem still is: into what ?

Why do you think it needs anything to expand into? It can hardly need space.

The expansion of space means that the distance between any two points gets larger over time (we only observe it on the largest scale because even galaxy clusters are bound by gravity which is strong enough to make a difference). Space may even be infinite.

 

[ratiocinator]

I meant the small singularity that started inflating:

" it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today"*
Right, please?

This quote (at least by itself) gives the wrong impression (it starts with "At its simplest, it says..." and it's a very simplified explanation), it's space itself that is expanding, not stuff expanding into already existing space. If you take any finite volume of space (such as the observable universe) then it gets smaller as we look backwards in time, and would reach zero at the singularity.

The singularity indicates what happens to the equations and is really telling us that the theory breaks down at that point. There's a singularity in the function 1/x at x=0.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem still is: into what ?

Why does it have to expand into anything? You are trying to apply Newtonian physics to a relativistic problem.

 

[paarsurrey]

This quote (at least by itself) gives the wrong impression (it starts with "At its simplest, it says..." and it's a very simplified explanation), it's space itself that is expanding, not stuff expanding into already existing space. If you take any finite volume of space (such as the observable universe) then it gets smaller as we look backwards in time, and would reach zero at the singularity.

The singularity indicates what happens to the equations and is really telling us that the theory breaks down at that point. There's a singularity in the function 1/x at x=0.

" function 1/x at x=0"

I am ordinary man in the street, life is as much for me as for anybody else. I understand by singularity as One-ness of G-d an attribute of G-d. Please save us form the terminology/science jargon as colored in magenta, please. Right, please?

Regards
___________________
1."Dark matter could be composed by black-hole remnants formed before the big-bang era in a bouncing cosmology. This hypothetical scenario has implications on the issue of the arrow of time: it upsets a common attribution of past low entropy to the state of the geometry and suggests a possible realisation of the perspectival interpretation of past low entropy."
(PDF) Pre-Big-Bang Black-Hole Remnants and Past Low Entropy
2. Black hole thermodynamics - Wikipedia

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok BBangers, if this study is correct, how does this affect current BB models and what do you think is causing it?

The Average Temperature of the Universe has Been Getting Hotter and Hotter
November 14, 2020

For almost a century, astronomers have understood that the Universe is in a state of expansion. Since the 1990s, they have come to understand that as of four billion years ago, the rate of expansion has been speeding up. As this progresses, and the galaxy clusters and filaments of the Universe move farther apart, scientists theorize that the mean temperature of the Universe will gradually decline.

But according to new research led by the Center for Cosmology and AstroParticle Physics (CCAPP) at Ohio State University, it appears that the Universe is actually getting hotter as time goes on. After probing the thermal history of the Universe over the last 10 billion years, the team concluded that the mean temperature of cosmic gas has increased more than 10 times and reached about 2.2 million K (~2.2 °C; 4 million °F) today.

The Average Temperature of the Universe has Been Getting Hotter and Hotter - Universe Today

 

[ratiocinator]

I am ordinary man in the street, life is as much for me as for anybody else.

Okay, but you were asking questions about cosmology.

I understand by singularity as One-ness of G-d an attribute of G-d.

Then you'll have to accept that when people talk about a singularity in the context of cosmology, they mean something entirely different.

Please save us form the terminology/science jargon as colored in magenta, please.

Again, you were asking questions about cosmology, which means you were asking about mathematical physics. I thought to example was simple enough for most people to get it but I understand that some people find mathematics very off-putting, so I'll try again....

When you have a set of equations (which is how we define theories in physics) and there is a value that you can put into them that makes the answer infinite, then you have a 'singularity'. That's what happens to the equations that describe the universe as a whole when we try to find out what happened about 13.8 billion years ago (density and temperature become infinite). That's the 'singularity', and it indicates that the theory (in this case general relativity) breaks down at that point.

 

[gnostic]

The problem still is: into what ?

This is for you and @paarsurrey, hopefully this will help you both understand how space itself is expanding.

It is space itself that expanding.

In old post, I used the balloon analogy to illustrate how space expand in 2-dimension - 2-dimension because it would be easier to explain.

Imagine the universe, the entire universe - is on this ballon surface area, and that you only focus on the surface. Don’t focus on what inside and outside the balloon, because you will be missing the points about the “expansion of space”.

The deflated balloon (focus only on the surface) is the original state of the universe at the beginning.

Note: Now normally in the Big Bang theory, ordinary particles and matters, stars, planets and galaxies would exist yet, but we will draw some dots to represent the future galaxies. To help you understand space expanding in 2-dimension, we put these dots in now.

As we blow air into the balloon (focusing only on what you see on the balloon, including the space between the dots), the size of balloon will expand, that will show not only dots increasing in size on the surface, but also the “space” between all the dots on the surface of the balloon. The more you inflate the balloon, the surface area on the balloon will keep expanding, just as space itself will expand in the universe. Those dots will also appear to move away from one another.

Does that make sense?

The balloon analogy is suppose to illustrate space expanding in 2D.

But of course, Universe is not in 2-dimension, so expansion of spacetime occur in 4-dimension (3D space + time). But that’s harder to explain and would involve far more complications with inclusions of some complex equations.

The main equations come from Einstein’s field equations, and the FLRW metric (Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is for you and @paarsurrey, hopefully this will help you both understand how space itself is expanding.

It is space itself that expanding.

In old post, I used the balloon analogy to illustrate how space expand in 2-dimension - 2-dimension because it would be easier to explain.

Imagine the universe, the entire universe - is on this ballon surface area, and that you only focus on the surface. Don’t focus on what inside and outside the balloon, because you will be missing the points about the “expansion of space”.

The deflated balloon (focus only on the surface) is the original state of the universe at the beginning.

Note: Now normally in the Big Bang theory, ordinary particles and matters, stars, planets and galaxies would exist yet, but we will draw some dots to represent the future galaxies. To help you understand space expanding in 2-dimension, we put these dots in now.

As we blow air into the balloon (focusing only on what you see on the balloon, including the space between the dots), the size of balloon will expand, that will show not only dots increasing in size on the surface, but also the “space” between all the dots on the surface of the balloon. The more you inflate the balloon, the surface area on the balloon will keep expanding, just as space itself will expand in the universe. Those dots will also appear to move away from one another.

Does that make sense?

The balloon analogy is suppose to illustrate space expanding in 2D.

But of course, Universe is not in 2-dimension, so expansion of spacetime occur in 4-dimension (3D space + time). But that’s harder to explain and would involve far more complications with inclusions of some complex equations.

The main equations come from Einstein’s field equations, and the FLRW metric (Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric).

What is causing the space to expand?

 

[alsome]

Again: the some question, into what ? There can't be anything there, could there ? If BB is correct!

 

[metis]

Again: the some question, into what ? There can't be anything there, could there ? If BB is correct!

The BB only pertains to our universe, but an increasing number of cosmologists hypothesize that there may be many more. So, if so, is there something(s) in-between? That's impossible to tell, and we probably will never know.

 

[alsome]

The "in-between" part bothers me a little wee tiny bit. quote: we probably will never know.

 

[Native]

What is causing the space to expand?

Even if is the logical question to ask, this is an unfair question :-(

It will get the "Big Bangers" going intellectually wild in all kind of further speculations which also needs questions which cannot be answered causally or logically.

 

[ratiocinator]

Again: the some question, into what ?

You seem to be stuck in the 19th century. Why do you think it needs to be into anything? What could space possibly expand into? Space might be infinite anyway. The expansion is to do with what is happening to distances between points within it or objects that are not bound together by gravity.

 

[Native]

In old post, I used the balloon analogy to illustrate how space expand in 2-dimension - 2-dimension because it would be easier to explain.

Imagine the universe, the entire universe - is on this ballon surface area, and that you only focus on the surface. Don’t focus on what inside and outside the balloon, because you will be missing the points about the “expansion of space”.

Explaining something cosmological in 2D?

I think you already missed the point yourself as a ballon needs something to blow it up in the first place.

 

[gnostic]

Again: the some question, into what ? There can't be anything there, could there ? If BB is correct!

As I have already explained, space is not expanding into something else - there are no other “space”, other than that of the universe...this universe.

As far as the Big Bang model is concern, there nothing outside of the universe. The Big Bang model is only explanation to the development of this universe.

BB say nothing about universes, nothing about void outside of the universe, nothing about the spiritual realm (eg religious versions of heaven, paradise or divine utopia, purgatory, hell, etc).

Everything that exist in the universe, eg galaxies, stars, planets, clouds of gases, space, and even life on Earth, etc.

So whenever the BB talks of expansion of space, it is talking about this universe.

You can ask about outside of the universe, Multiverse, cyclical universe, etc, if you wish, but you shouldn’t expect the Big Bang model to provide answers that are outside of the BB’s scopes.

There are currently 4 main contributions to the Big Bang model, they included the (A) 1920s original, (B) the 1948’s inclusion of the Primordial Nucleosynthesis & CMBR, (C) the Inflationary models of the 1980s, and (D) the ΛCDM model of 1990s.

None of these versions talk of expanding “space” into something outside of the universe.