Well, I know this is a really off the wall theory, and probably really ATM (don't most astronomers believe that the universe is infinite...), I just wanted to get some peer review on it. My theory is about what is commonly known as the big bang, nobody really knows how it happened, just from what I'm learning in high school, the main idea is that the universe was originally nothing but a tiny ball of infinitely dense matter, and it exploded, and expanded, giving birth to the universe. But this doesn't explain anything about how the universe came to become nothing but a tiny ball ready to explode. My theory has four main inconsistencies, as I've outlined later on in the post, but I'll try to guide everyone through it as best as I can.

1. Imagine a geometric point {see inconsistency reference number one below.}, it has no length width or height, it is just existing. Beyond the point is nothing, not even void. Then matter was somehow introduced. Matter inside the point would have been completely different from matter now, because it would have had no dimensions. {See inconsistency reference number two below} This geometric point, for lack of a better name is what I will call a zero-dimensional universe.

2. Eventually the matter (matter is in italics because it is different from three-dimensional matter.) completely filled the point until it couldn’t contain any more matter {see inconsistency reference number three below}, and it underwent something similar to the big bang, and gained length, but not width, or height assuming your view of the newly formed line is from a perspective that allows you to see it only in length. The line underwent the same process as the geometric point, but with a one-dimensional form of that matter .

3. The line, which had no thickness, no height, (even lines drawn on paper have height but not very much) only length, but the length is finite. This line underwent a similar process as the geometric point, matter was again able to be produced, and eventually filled up the confines of the lines, causing it to explode into a type of finite geometric plane only having length and width, but not infinite length or width.

4. In the plane matter was again able to be produced, but eventually it filled up the plane until it was in the same situation as the line and the geometric point before it. The plane then exploded into what we know of as the universe in what would have been the big bang. {See inconsistency reference number four below.}

INCONSISTENCY REFERENCES

1. How can matter fill up a point, a point should have no volume?
2. What started the production of matter?
3. How can non-dimensional matter fill a geometric point, even if it did have volume.
4. Why didn't the plane or the line, instead of exploding into a three-dimensional universe, explode so that it had more length and width or length respectively. [see point number one below]

LAST MINUTE EXPLANATIONS

1. Maybe the line and the plane did explode to get longer one or more times, but eventually it exploded outward into a third dimension. (Although this explanation leads the reader back to inconsistency reference number 4 above.)

Well, that is my theory; I want anyone who reads it to please give me some peer review. If you see any other inconsistencies in this theory, please point them out to me. I really will appreciate it. Thanks!

indygo

Welcome to the board. You might want to try here for an more in depth explanation (along with refutations of some of the alternative explanations and as a bonus a relativity tutorial) of the big bang. That link may help explain some things.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

I will give you one big descrepancy with your theory, the "matter" you are looking to fill the your point is not matter, it is energy E=mc^2.

I see Thanatos has already pointed out my error, I went to simpistic in my post, Energy would likely be the first thing you could measure after the Big Bang, What is in your dimensionless point (a singularity) is not known, as Thanatos points out what we understand as normal physics just breaks down. The rules of our physics become manifest as the results of the initial event begins to cool. Sorry if I mislead you. There are some theories as to the nature of the singularity but they take 12 dimensions to explain, past superstrings to planes but that is beyond me other than knowing the theory is there. My math was a thing of the seventies, in otherwords, Huh? Hope that helps.

There are always gordian knots involved when you attempt to reach back to 'in the beginning'. Most scientists yield at the Planck wall [10-43 seconds after the BB]. Physics simply breaks down at that point. In an emergent universe all things, including the concept of space and the laws of physics, are emergent. Without knowing the order and timing of their emergence the task is difficult. Matter, as already noted, could not exist until a relatively long time after the BB. The temperature of the very early universe was too high to permit the existence of any known particles.

Hey, I'm going to try to get a reply in here soon, it may take a couple of days, depending on when I can get back on the computer. I'll be back in a couple of days most likely.

Okay, sorry it took so long, I've been really busy for the past couple of days. I was thinking about what all of you said, and I everything that you said makes complete sense, in a three-dimensional universe.
Okay, I know this is really ATM, but physics could have been broken down at the Planck wall because they hadn't been stabilized yet. Maybe the laws of physics at and before the Planck wall were still partially or mostly 2 dimensional. Maybe they hadn't adjusted yet? Also, could you give me a good link to some info on gordian knots? I want to learn about those.
Maybe what is in the dimensionless point isn't known because it just can't exist anymore. I don't think that a 0 or 1 or 2 dimensional object could exist in a universe with three dimensions. Maybe the universe was so hot in the begining, as Thanatos pointed out, because all the matter was changing from 2 dimensional form into 3 dimensional.
Thanks for the link! I'll go check that out

indygo

Edit: 2006.7.28 Took out a question (what are gordian knots? )