This questions stems from reading another thread here: Help wanted

I was originally going to post in that thread, but I didn't want to derail it. This post may seem a bit disjointed, due to missing the second page originally, and transfering to a new post. My apologies for that. Since my question came up while reading certain responses in that thread, I'll be quoting those responses here.

I've been understanding the Big Bang to mean the creation of the Universe, until recently. Would it be that the Big Bang is instead the creation of (or, maybe more correctly, the formation of) a part of the universe into the form that we are able to observe today? From a singularity(?) that was a part of the Universe to...a sort of bubble that is also a part of the Universe with physical laws ordering the mass that has always been around within a section of the Universe?

A Note* I wrote this question before realizing that I apparently missed the second page of this thread. After reading the rest of the thread, I'm still visualizing the Big Bang in this manner, since, by definition, the Universe is everything. Our Big Bang bubble is expanding. Even if we are unable to relate what it is expanding into, even if it is a nothingness, a void etc., wouldn't it have to be a part of the whole Universe as that word is defined? That doesn't seem to me to be a philosophical question, maybe a technicality though. But science is all about technicalities, as I see it. It may be unanswerable at this time, but nearly all questions about the Universe and everything in it were at one point in time unanswerable.

This is just confusing me, why do we use the term Universe to mean everything, and yet also use it to title this 'Big Bang bubble'. Sure there are quite a few words that can have two or more meanings, but I certainly think we should be more specific when discussing and explaining scientifically such a grand thing as, well, the Universe.

S.Dicenza, I ponder your points. I always find the same answer. We think the universe is all there is because its what we are in, can measure, observe.

The expanding universe certainly seems as if it should be expanding into something. To say that something is nothing simply cannot be proven, a statement of faith not science.

So, to say the universe is all there is also cannot be proven, and is likewise a statement of faith not science.

Of course, neither can the existance of something outside the universe be proven. To say there's something outside the universe is, again, a statement of faith not science.

That's where things stand. Currently. Things change continuously.

Flying Deuces, I'm understanding what you are saying in regards to my first question. We don't know and the answer we could come up with would be conjecture only.

But,

I disagree with that statement. Even I think this is nitpicking, but like I said, when talking about the Universe I feel that we should be more specific. By your sentiment, we can also say that since we can't prove that the Big Bang is not a part of a larger area, then believing so would be an act of faith. We just don't know one way or the other. What we do know though, is that the word "Universe" has a definitive meaning. According to Dictionary.com, from two references, it means "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole", "everything that exists anywhere". Therefore, since we don't know either way whether or not there is something outside of the Big Bang area, calling this area the Universe would as well be faith based. Even calling it the "expanding universe" wouldn't be correct, as that seems to infer that All That Is, is expanding. We don't know for certain that that is the case. We can only say that all that we can observe appears to be expanding.

This distinction I'm looking for comes up due to reading and hearing people say that the Universe was formed by the Big Bang, yet, for my reasons stated above, this is not a true statement. Is it just that some people aren't being as specific as(I feel) they should when saying this? Or is there some kind of quantum mechanic, or other physical law, that I don't know(and there's a whole lot that I don't!) that makes that statement true?

I always refer to it as the Universe. To me that specifies the Universe in which we live, the observable Universe. (If you use "a universe" then you'll need to specify which one and describe it for everyone else).

Because of certain barriers (such as the maximum energy level we can create in a collider, the Planck limit, speed of light, etc.) it is extremely unlikely we will ever "know" of any other universe, much less be able to describe anything at all about such a thing. If there were to be a big crunch, followed by a big bang (a re-bang?) no information could be carried across and therefore not a single shred of evidence that our Universe ever even existed would be available when the next cycle of pond scum evolves to the point of being able to ask those same questions again. Who knows, in a next cycle, if it is a cycle, perhaps the laws of physics change radically?

I wholy agree that many such matters are questions of faith. If it can not be falsified, then it is a question for faith - not science. It does not appear, whether our Universe is headed for cold death or heat death or somethging in between, that we will ever be able to falsify statements about pre-bang events or matters outside of our observable Universe.

From what this layman has gleaned, multi-verses, string theory, and the like are strictly thought experiments; and not likely to ever be much more than that. A proper working laboratory to make it more than a thought experiment would need to be the size of . . . .




wait for it . . . .




The Universe.





But it's fun to chit-chat about it nonetheless.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley