I guess what I'm trying to say is, why does there have to be a 'hypothetically perfect void' at all. What reasons are there for believing that there is no matter outside the area created in the Big Bang?

As no one in 3 pages have been able to adequately answer your question, my next suggestion is that you postulate a new theory, test it and write your own thesis explaining the answer you want.

Who knows? You may be the next Einstein.

Your question: "Where is nothing?"

My answer is nowhere.

If matter, time or space exists... it is within OUR universe.... or it is unattainable.

Unacceptable to you? OK.... You figure it out and tell US.

Much Love,
EE

KiwiPhil, your question may very well represent a lot of people so could you please help me understand what you are actually asking about? I am starting to believe that we are all trying to answer a question that you never meant to ask! As I see it, there are two alternatives here:

1. You are one out of millions of otherwise well-informed people who have never understood the Big Bang theory (or relativity) well enough to realize what it claims. Your post #52 might imply that you think of the Big Bang as an explosion and that you believe in it only because you find it logical that we can calculate backwards to a point in time when that explosion occurred. Well, most of the answers that you have received on this forum try to convey that the Big Bang is not that at all and if this misconception of the Big Bang theory is the reason for your question (and you have my full respect because you are certainly not alone) then I believe you should not turn to this forum for the answer. You should read a few good books on the subject!

On the other hand you might be putting an entirely different question. In that case you have just not done a good job explaining that to us:

2. You fully understand and accept that the very foundation of the Big Bang theory is that the universe that we observe and the space that surrounds us and the time that we live in – the interwoven concept of space-time – all originates in a singularity with no dimensions at all. If that is your position, your question is rather whether the Big Bang that caused OUR universe could take place INSIDE another universe, another space-time. Then I suggest you read a little more till you realize that you have just asked: “What is south of the south pole?”. If that question still makes sense to you, I offer the answer “Nobody knows and nobody CAN know because our concepts of space and time are as confined to our own universe (read my post #46) as the concepts of north and south are confined to the surface of the Earth”.

So in the first case, you are putting a question that can be answered by the Big Bang theory if you take the time to study it. In the second case your question can never be answered. It would be most clarifying if you could tell which category is yours or if you can find yourself a third one.

I agree on that one,
but what about the survival chances of ANY species, ANY life?
(I mean, independent from the question if we humans can make it or not)

I was wondering wether an ever-expanding universe would pose any theoretical obstacles to the survival of ANY form of life?
(e.g. by going dark and running out of usable energy at a certain point in time)

Hi KiwiPhil,

You might like to have a look at two articles at Space.com (Links are at the bottom). I think that you’ll like these two hypotheses.

You can assess how deep your understanding to the Big Bang theory is, and why it is the most accepted model up to date. However, I think Anton is making a lot of sense in his post number 63.

While I’m at it, in my first post on this forum, I’d like to say hello to all forum subscribers. I hope to benefit from this forum and contribute where I can. And of course, very well done to Fraser and Pamela on Astronomy Cast. I love it, and love your approach guys. Thanks!

Article one Ekpyrotic Universe at

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._010413-1.html

Or this tiny URL

http://tinyurl.com/6ugu

Article two Cyclic Universe at

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._universe.html

Or this tiny URL

http://tinyurl.com/qxuzg

Anton, I couldn't help grinning when I read your post. mostly because I do fall into your first category. That is I do think of the Big Bang as an explosion. However, I have read quite a few good books on this subject and consider myself reasonably well informed. That said, if you would recommend some reading to sway me to your way of thinking, it would be well recieved.

EvilEye, As you may have guessed from my particularly leading questions, I do indeed have a theory about all this but really have no idea who to talk to about developing it further.

Kiwi... You need to write a thesis. You don't need to be in college. Einstein wasn't. Your ideas are just as valid as established beliefs until they can be discounted.

I never meant to sound short with you.

Until I learned what I know now I too thought of the Big Bang as an "explosion".

Good to hear from you, KiwiPhil! I don't intend to persuade you over more than perhaps in modifying you statement in your post #50: "I definitely believe in the Big Bang."

Ever since Sir Frederick Hoyle, who definitely did not believe in the Big Bang, was unfortunate enough to accidentally name the theory almost 60 years ago, the term has stuck in everyone’s mind. Therefore it’s a very good idea to not use the Big Bang label to represent anything else. It should for ever be reserved for the theory independently conceived by Fridman and Lemaître, based on Einsteins general theory of relativity, developed by Gamow, Alpher and others, postulating that our universe originates from a singularity – a point with no dimensions in space or time – where Edwin Hubbles observations of receding galaxies is explained by the expansion of the space-time fabric.

If you believe in a big explosion, maybe you should call it the Big Blast or something similar. After all, the most common misinterpretation of the Big Bang also deserves a name and I agree with EvilEye, yours might be the embryo to a new grand theory. In any case, you are of course most entitled to hold that view. I can think of a few things to consider, though.

You would have to explain why galaxies pick up speed the further away they are from us. That would hardly be the case if they were flying away due to an explosion inside an existing space, whereas it follows by necessity if space itself is expanding.

As I see it we would also have to accept that our Milky Way galaxy is the very center of that primordial explosion since in a “pre-existing” space there must be such a center and the vast majority of galaxies can clearly be seen to rush away from us. In the Big Bang on the other hand, every point in the universe is part of the original center and every point, unless gravitationally bound, is naturally receding from every other point.

Simon Singh has written a good overview called, eh, Big Bang!

That one is easy. The universe is over 1/4 old.

Imagine streching a rubber-band beyond its limit. (Remember that a PERFECT vaccum would pull our universe against the force of gravity.)

At some point, the rubber band will BREAK. And when that happens what happens? The ends along with the whole thing, expannd faster in opposite directions exactly.

Expansion faster than gravity is not unnaceptable if we didn't know the first part of the equation - meaning the 1/4 of the timeline of the complete Universe.)

What I mean is that we have no way of knowing where half-way is.

Regardless of the theory, our Universe will cease to exist someday.

We know how old the universe is NOW, but we don't know how old it WILL be when it dies, so we can't know why we are expanding faster. We could still be in the first half of an explosion, or we could be at the end of a rubber band that snapped long after it passed the half-way mark.

I am not sure I’m smart enough to follow your argument here but I get the impression that you are talking about the increasing expansion rate of the universe (for instance due to dark energy) whereas I am talking about Hubble’s law (showing that the velocity at which distant galaxies appear to move away from us is proportional to their distance). Again:

If the velocity at which distant galaxies appear to move away from us is gradually increasing the further away they are, that would be a proof for the Big Bang statement that space itself is expanding: the further away to start with, the more space there is in between that can expand.

If instead we had a Big Blast INSIDE an existing space (ordinary explosion), at least I would not expect any such effect.

The fact that the whole universe is also increasing its expansion rate is a subject for another show, to quote Pamela and Fraser.

As far as I'm aware the velocity of singular galaxies are not increasing, (except for the effect of dark energy) unless you mean that the further they are from us the faster they appear to be travelling. This is just the standard definition of expansion, which I agree with.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if an explosion happened in a frictionless environment wouldn't it have the same sort of expansion if there was nothing to slow it down? (apart from gravity)

Yes I am referring to recessional velocity, that is the velocity at which distant galaxies APPEAR to move away from us. This means, as you say, that the galaxies themselves are not moving (which by the way they would be if we were talking explosion) but the space between them is expanding. If we call that “the standard definition of expansion” it is only because the Big Bang theory has become the standard theory. The theory explains why galaxies SEEM to move faster the further away they are, namely because of the expansion of space-time itself and that makes it a very unique kind of expansion.

If you had a standard explosion inside an existing space you would NOT get that increasing effect because here it would be the galaxies that were moving (and let’s forget about gravity, dark matter and dark energy since these factors for now are not relevant and will only serve to confuse). The explosion would occur in a specific place inside that space and pieces of matter would fly away from that point in all directions at approximately the same speed. Each piece would maintain its speed. No force would act to increase it. What would you see if you could sit on one of these pieces? Well, you would certainly not find that all the other pieces were flying away from you. Those pieces behind you (in the direction of the original explosion point) and the pieces in front of you would maintain their distance to you since you were headed the same way and even if some of them were much farther away than others, that would not make them move faster. The ones that would recede at the highest speed would be the ones flying in the opposite direction. There would be no increase in speed whatsoever due to distance.

If you could remain at the original center of the explosion (and that’s where we appear to be) you would see all the other pieces of matter fly away from you at the same speed regardless of distance.

I think that if you agree with the standard definition of expansion as you say you do, then you have thereby already accepted that space itself is expanding and if you follow that backwards you will get to a point that contains not only all matter (like in an explosion) but all of space and all of time.

Sorry, I must keep it shorter next time...

If we are but one of endless universes, like the foam of bubbles...

Expansion occurs within each of these bubbles for a time, and then one tiny bubble expanding next to a neighbor doing the same....with all neighbors around THEM doing the same, 2 of the bubbles suddenly open to each other, and become one larger bubble. Near the point of the time they are coming together, they begin to speed up radically, and then snap and then slow as the larger single bubble wobbles a tiny fraction of time and settles.

We may be at the point shortly before the universe snaps together with another.

Our neighbor is knocking, and we haven't let them in ....yet.

Scientists also confirmed that in the first 8 billion years in the existence of the universe gravitational center collapse in the universe started to decay. Dark matter began losing its gravitational pull against the dark energy, began to pull apart the universe causing the galaxies to collide with each other (an example thousands galaxies collided in Abell 754.) A similar event of an explosion was accrued in the universe a side of the ball was ripped apart and allowing the galaxies to escape from the universe. Milky Way and many galaxies that were outside of the universe science believe that all these galaxies are part of the universe and appear to them more flat in shape. Galaxies will drift further and further apart and expend forever in endless dark space. Science also has similar theory hypotheses the universe will continue to expand.

As we compare evolution of the universe with a computer.
The first computer was build 1946 weight 28 tons, size 80’wx8’h, performance 5000 addition problems/sec. and inside 17840 vacuum tubes.
Computer build in 2006 weight negligible, size 90.3 sq.mm, performance 21.6 billion ops./sec. and inside 151.6 m transistors.
We can call evolution of a computer but who was behind of this marvel?

Also we should look at the universe in the same way there must be very intelligent Beings who has knowledge and purpose of their creation.

I'm afraid I must disagree. If you took a sphere of 'perfect' explosive, one in which every particle of it's mass repelled every other particle with the same force, then the particles on the outer edge would move the fastest due to having the combined forces of everything else pushing against them. This force would get steadily less as you look deeper because there would be less particles to supply the force. Each piece would maintatin its speed. No force would be needed to increase it. Each piece would already be moving in the appropriate way.

OK, that’s intresting…

The Big Bang Theory has been developed during an 80-year period (90 or even 100 if you include the Einstein foundations). Over those years it has been refined and proved over and over again. Naturally, that does not exclude the possibility that another theory might one day replace it but, to say the least, the theory has had a good start.
The Big Bang Theory claims that the universe originates in a singularity and therefore is not an explosion of matter inside an existing space but an expansion of space itself.

I have two questions for you:

1. Why, in your opinion, is Hubble’s expansion law (that the speed of recession is proportional to distance) considered to be a key evidence in support of the Big Bang Theory?
   
2. If the expansion that we observe (that is expressed in Hubble’s law) can be explained by an explosion of matter in space as described by you, is there any other place our own galaxy can be located than in the dead center of that original explosion?

1. For the same reason as everybody else. Because all the Galaxies are moving apart, at some time they must have been much closer together.
   
   
   
   Quote:

   Originally Posted by Anton If the expansion that we observe (that is expressed in Hubble’s law) can be explained by an explosion of matter in space as described by you, is there any other place our own galaxy can be located than in the dead center of that original explosion?

Absolutely. It can be anywhere out of the viewable range of the edge. All Galaxies are still going to be moving away from each other in a uniform way. It can't be within a viewable range of the edge otherwise we would notice a lack of stars from the area outside.

But the big bang (bad name) didn't happen "over there".

We are a product of it still existing.