[RascalPuff]

Recently in this Theory of Everything internet enclave, the following - exemplary - excerpt was included in a post, by neutralino:

"Note that nowhere in the BB theory does it state 'the universe exploded into existence', or in fact anything to do with explosions!!"

This conceptual posturing is merely an example of the fact that the big bang theory has evolved from it's inception as a 'beginning explosion', into a Standard Theorist bunker of denials that any 'original explosion' commenced what is now popularly referenced as 'The Expanding Universe'.

Proclamations that there is no original explosion associated with the big bang theory have become the status quo. When someone proclaims or implies otherwise, they are promptly described as a 'novice', and 'corrected', as exemplified by the above quoted statement by neutralino.

This controversy leads to the question of where the big bang theory originated, and, how it was described.
Here is the google acquired answer to that question:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ce/sc0022.html

In the winter of 1998, two separate teams of astronomers in Berkeley, California, made a similar, startling discovery. They were both observing supernovae — exploding stars visible over great distances — to see how fast the universe is expanding. In accordance with prevailing scientific wisdom, the astronomers expected to find the rate of expansion to be decreasing, Instead they found it to be increasing — a discovery which has since “shaken astronomy to its core” (Astronomy, October 1999).

This discovery would have come as no surprise to Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on “a day without yesterday.”
After decades of struggle, other scientists came to accept the Big Bang as fact. But while most scientists — including the mathematician Stephen Hawking — predicted that gravity would eventually slow down the expansion of the universe and make the universe fall back toward its center, Lemaitre believed that the universe would keep expanding. He argued that the Big Bang was a unique event, while other scientists believed that the universe would shrink to the point of another Big Bang, and so on. The observations made in Berkeley supported Lemaitre’s contention that the Big Bang was in fact “a day without yesterday.” When Georges Lemaitre was born in Charleroi, Belgium, most scientists thought that the universe was infinite in age and constant in its general appearance. The work of Isaac Newton and James C. Maxwell suggested an eternal universe. When Albert Einstein first published his theory of relativity in 1916, it seemed to confirm that the universe had gone on forever, stable and unchanging.

The revisionary transition came about, because there is no common center from which the expanding universe, recedes. The dynamic structure of the expanding universe is such, that the recession of light sources is moving directly away from the observer, in direct line of sight, no matter what location the expansion is observed. 'The center is everywhere'. This is not the dynamic signature of an explosion - especially when it is learned that the expansion is proceeding ever faster: accelerating.

On the other hand the described dynamics are the signature of a repelling force acting out of all material bodies, 'just like gravity', except, in the opposite direction. Refer, 'the Cosmological Constant'.

[neutralino]

Ok I'm ready to eat a tiny slice of humble pie now, RP. My response that you've quoted in red is not correct. I can't remember saying that last night, and have no idea why I would do, but I did (I checked).

So here's my stance on the big bang. Many people say that there was an "explosion" at some point in space, or that the universe was created from a single point in space. This, clearly, is incorrect (since the universe consists of the spacetime of the universe).

However, one can say that there was an explosion that created spacetime and that is why the universe is expanding in the way we see today. The important things to notice are that firstly, this explosion did not take place in a specific point in spacetime, since this would imply a centre, which contradicts the cosmological principle. Secondly, we note that we cannot run the clock back to time zero and see an infinitely dense point of matter. Thirdly, this explosion is not like any explosion that we would imagine. When we think of explosions, we think of fragments of something being thrown further into space. However, this explosion was an explosion on the universe itself which created the universe (if that makes sense.)

Anyway, talking about explosions, whilst technically not incorrect, gets confusing. I would much rather take the stance that the big bang theory states that the universe was once far more dense than it is today.

So, I apologise to you, RascalPuff, and to anyone else who read my incorrect views.

[As an aside, in future it may be better to get a reference from a non-catholic source if discussing workings and successes of a catholic priest!]

[Profpat]

Now lets get back to your heated, but informative debate. The world needs geniuses like you gentlemen.

Best to both of you,

Pat

[Profpat]

" However, this explosion was an explosion on the universe itself which created the universe (if that makes sense.) "

This is probably a dumb question but is it possible that the universe imploded like a TV because of the vacuum?

Best,

Pat

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Profpat " However, this explosion was an explosion on the universe itself which created the universe (if that makes sense.) " This is probably a dumb question but is it possible that the universe imploded like a TV because of the vacuum? Best, Pat

It is beyond the realm of the big bang model to say what the actual big bang was, since the laws of physics, along with everything else, were created at the time of the big bang. So, basically, you can say whatever you like happened the actual moment of the birth of the universe, and no-one can argue against it. The only proviso is that the big bang created a universe that we see today (we mathematicians would say that they are the only "boundary conditions") but apart from that, anything goes.

An alternative way to think of the big bang is to not think of it as an explosion, but to think of it as a sudden appearance of space everywhere in the universe. This agrees with the normal point of view, that everything we can see now (everything within our horizon) was much more dense in the past than it is now, but it also gives us a way to imagine a big bang in an infinite universe: namely that is the universe is infinite now, then it was infinite at the time of the big bang.

Recently, there has been a model of the universe conjectured by some american cosmologists (/mathematicians) which uses the potential quantum gravity theory "loop quantum gravity." This is called the "big bounce" model. Basically, this is like a big bang/crunch universe (well, multiple universes after one another, since only one "cycle" can be called a universe). The previous universe is thought to have contracted to a very very small size until the forces of gravity are weak compared with quantum forces, and then the universe bounces back, and starts expanding again. This is quite an interesting model, although highly speculative, since in theory we would be able to turn time back beyond time zero. There has been talk of whether the previous universe would be identical to ours, but most people whos work I've read seem to think no, since quantum fluctuations are pretty random.

Anyway, that's quite a way off topic, so I'll leave it now, but I hope I've at least partially answered your question!

[Profpat]

Thanks for the response Neutralino, and yes it did

[sillysally]

" However, this explosion was an explosion on the universe itself which created the universe (if that makes sense.) "

As though it inverted? That's how I make sense of what you say. We must be on the inside at this point because we can't see what's on the outside. Can we get squeezed out, please?

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by sillysally As though it inverted? That's how I make sense of what you say. We must be on the inside at this point because we can't see what's on the outside. Can we get squeezed out, please?

An interesting thought Sally.

Maybe everything is coming in instead of out.
With our universe we may have to rethink some of our basic premises.

Completely off the topic I once dated a woman with inverted nipples. I guess she was still able to breast feed though.

Best,

Pat

[neutralino]

I've been rethinking this, and I think that, in the context that the quotation (in red in the first post) was taken, I was well within reason to make such a comment. In that thread, you were talking about Lemaitre cosmology, which, whilst similar, is not the same as the current big bang theory. You said

You mean that in today's vigorously renovated and shored up big bang, there is no where to be found any trace of it's original (Lemaitre) presentation as an explosive event...

to which I have to answer yes, there is no trace of the original explosion as presented by Lemaitre. Lemaitre talks about a primeval atom which explodes and causes the bang, whereas the current big bang theory does not say that there is an explosion at any particular point in space; i.e. there cannot be an explosion of a super atom. Like I said above one could think of the big bang as an explosion that created the universe, but the problem with this is that it causes many misconceptions (mainly because "explosion" does not have the same definition that we are used to). The best thing to say is that the big bang model says that there was once a time when the universe and things in it were more dense than they are today.

Note the reasons why the big bang model has changed from that of Lemaitre's: firstly, the "super atom" big bang cannot explain the abundances of heavier atoms, since it requires the decay of a single massive atom at the time of the big bang. Secondly Lemaitre's big bang cannot explain the CMB.

Anyway, that's where I stand on the matter.

[dleviwing]

The “Standard Model” emphasizes EXPANSION not EXPLOSION, though it is a mute point in that it cannot be tested as yet. The SM is also a Genesis model since it is creating something from nothing.
http://www.toequest.com/forum/blogs/viewblog.php?userid=233&entry=119