big bang "everywhere at once"?

i recently saw a video titled "the astronomers". one of the
scientists in the video made the statement that the big bang didn't
happen at a point in space, but rather "everywhere at once". is this
a new concept or have i just missed it all these years? btw, i'm not
a scientist, just an interested layperson (if you hadn't guessed)!

tw

"the wonderer" wrote in message
om...
i recently saw a video titled "the astronomers". one of the
scientists in the video made the statement that the big bang didn't
happen at a point in space, but rather "everywhere at once". is this
a new concept or have i just missed it all these years? btw, i'm not
a scientist, just an interested layperson (if you hadn't guessed)!

You must have missed it! Everywhere at once is it!

"the wonderer" wrote in message
om...
i recently saw a video titled "the astronomers". one of the
scientists in the video made the statement that the big bang didn't
happen at a point in space, but rather "everywhere at once". is this
a new concept or have i just missed it all these years? btw, i'm not
a scientist, just an interested layperson (if you hadn't guessed)!

I think what that scientist referred to was that at the time of the big
bang, "everywhere" was just that tiny particle which would explode and
expand into the universe we know. That is to say: The big bang didn't take
place in empty space. Empty space was created along with all the matter and
energy during the big bang. Thus, the big bang can't have happened at a
point in space, since space only came to be after the explosion. There is no
space, at least not as we know it, beyond the current boundaries of the
universe, just as there wasn't any before the big bang.

It's an outlandish concept to attempt to understand :-)

Dear the wonderer:

"the wonderer" wrote in message
om...
i recently saw a video titled "the astronomers". one of the
scientists in the video made the statement that the big bang didn't
happen at a point in space, but rather "everywhere at once". is this
a new concept or have i just missed it all these years? btw, i'm not
a scientist, just an interested layperson (if you hadn't guessed)!

I can add very little to what Laura provided for an excellent answer:

URL:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

The "Big Bang" is just a little label that we can't seem to get rif of.
Nothing blew out of some center, launching mass across the heavens. So
"misleading" is the least offensive label that could be applied to "Big
Bang".

David A. Smith

the wonderer wrote:
i recently saw a video titled "the astronomers". one of the
scientists in the video made the statement that the big bang didn't
happen at a point in space, but rather "everywhere at once". is this
a new concept or have i just missed it all these years?

You missed it. Popular science accounts of the Big Bang in general
portray it wrong and say that the BB happened at a single point. But the
scientific theory itself said *always* that it happened "everywhere at
once".


btw, i'm not
a scientist, just an interested layperson (if you hadn't guessed)!

No problem with that. Problems are only caused by laypersons who think
that the understand science better than the scientists, and try to
tell them that they got it all wrong.


Bye,
Bjoern

Laura wrote:
"the wonderer" wrote in message
om...

i recently saw a video titled "the astronomers". one of the
scientists in the video made the statement that the big bang didn't
happen at a point in space, but rather "everywhere at once". is this
a new concept or have i just missed it all these years? btw, i'm not
a scientist, just an interested layperson (if you hadn't guessed)!


I think what that scientist referred to was that at the time of the big
bang, "everywhere" was just that tiny particle which would explode and
expand into the universe we know.

Err, now, not necessarily. If the universe is flat or open, it has an
infinite volume, and always had. Hence it never was a "tiny particle".


That is to say: The big bang didn't take
place in empty space. Empty space was created along with all the matter and
energy during the big bang. Thus, the big bang can't have happened at a
point in space, since space only came to be after the explosion.

Well, with that I can agree.


There is no
space, at least not as we know it, beyond the current boundaries of the
universe, just as there wasn't any before the big bang.

The universe *has* no boundaries.


It's an outlandish concept to attempt to understand :-)

Yes. ;-)


Bye,
Bjoern

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
Laura wrote:
"the wonderer" wrote in message
om...

i recently saw a video titled "the astronomers". one of the
scientists in the video made the statement that the big bang didn't
happen at a point in space, but rather "everywhere at once". is this
a new concept or have i just missed it all these years? btw, i'm not
a scientist, just an interested layperson (if you hadn't guessed)!


I think what that scientist referred to was that at the time of the big
bang, "everywhere" was just that tiny particle which would explode and
expand into the universe we know.

Err, now, not necessarily. If the universe is flat or open, it has an
infinite volume, and always had. Hence it never was a "tiny particle".

Well, tiny is a misnomer, really. There was nothing with which to compare
it, and it was everything, so it could be argued that it was very large as
well. Size is relevant only when it's relative :-)
Is this flat universe concept you refer to the only serious model being
considered?



That is to say: The big bang didn't take
place in empty space. Empty space was created along with all the matter
and
energy during the big bang. Thus, the big bang can't have happened at a
point in space, since space only came to be after the explosion.

Well, with that I can agree.


There is no
space, at least not as we know it, beyond the current boundaries of the
universe, just as there wasn't any before the big bang.

The universe *has* no boundaries.

No? I would think, if it is expanding, it must have a boundary of some sort.
I know we can't see it, or ever get there, but if there were no boundaries,
how can we talk of expansion? Please explain why I'm wrong.



It's an outlandish concept to attempt to understand :-)

Yes. ;-)


Bye,
Bjoern

"L" == Laura writes:

L "Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in
L message ...
Laura wrote:
"the wonderer" wrote in
message:news:5b4cddc8.0405251730.340e6e5a@posting. google.com...

i recently saw a video titled "the astronomers". one of the
scientists in the video made the statement that the big bang
didn't happen at a point in space, but rather "everywhere at
once". is this a new concept or have i just missed it all these
years?

I think what that scientist referred to was that at the time of
the big bang, "everywhere" was just that tiny particle which
would explode and expand into the universe we know.

No, as Bjoern says, the Big Bang refers to a point in *time*.

In the past the Universe was hotter and denser. Ignore the
concentrations of matter that we see as galaxies. Imagine that the
Universe consists of a uniform sea of particles. Then in the past,
the distances between particles was smaller, and the temperature was
higher. That's it. If there is an infinite number of particles, then
we have an infinite number of particles coming infinitesimally close
to each other at a finite time in the past.

Err, now, not necessarily. If the universe is flat or open, it has
an infinite volume, and always had. Hence it never was a "tiny
particle".

L Well, tiny is a misnomer, really. There was nothing with which to
L compare it, and it was everything, so it could be argued that it
L was very large as well. Size is relevant only when it's relative
L :-) Is this flat universe concept you refer to the only serious
L model being considered?

The data certainly seem to suggest a flat Universe. By this, we mean
that the geometry is Euclidean. For example, if you measure the
interior angles of a triangle, no matter how big the sides of the
triangle are, the sum of the angles will always be 180 degrees.
Similarly, parallel lines continue forever, never meeting.

Such a Universe has an infinite volume. Always has and always will.

The problem most people have is that popular descriptions of the Big
Bang describe it as occurring from a singularity, implying that a
singularity is a point in space. It need not be. A singularity can
be a volume. If the density becomes infinite in the past, then that's
a singularity.

[...]
There is no space, at least not as we know it, beyond the
current boundaries of the universe, just as there wasn't any
before the big bang.

The universe *has* no boundaries.

L No? I would think, if it is expanding, it must have a boundary of
L some sort. I know we can't see it, or ever get there, but if there
L were no boundaries, how can we talk of expansion? Please explain
L why I'm wrong.

What's the boundary of the Earth's surface? Where on the Earth's
surface can you walk to the "edge"? Some things don't have
boundaries.

The best way to think about the expansion of the Universe is in the
following sense. Consider a one-dimensional distribution of
particles:


---*---*---*---*---*--- [assume that this extends to
infinity in both directions]

After some time, the distances between the particles have increased or
our one-dimensional universe has expanded to

- - - * - - - * - - - * - - - * - - - * - - -


--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Dear Laura:

"Laura" wrote in message
...

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
....
The universe *has* no boundaries.

No? I would think, if it is expanding, it must have a boundary of some
sort.
I know we can't see it, or ever get there, but if there were no
boundaries,
how can we talk of expansion? Please explain why I'm wrong.

I can add very little (that is correct) to Dr. Lazio's or Bjoern's
response. The spaceTIME of the Universe has a single boundary at the Big
Bang (like in mathematics, where they draw a circle around it, but don't
fill it in). There is one set of solutions in GR that provides that the
event horizon of a BH is the "Big Bang" of another Universe. It is
entirely possible this applies to our Universe as well. Note the
similarity of the "one way arrow of time" to "c is the speed limit".
According to this, the space of our Universe is "normal" to our time axis,
which time axis was contiguous (at the Big Bang) with the space of the
super-Universe.

Think of expansion as very slightly decreasing the unit of measure, then
measuring the length of the coastline of Norway. It gets much, much
longer, and never stops getting longer. And by "decreasing the unit of
measure", I don't mean the meter stick gets shorter, or that c is
decreasing (tantamount to the same thing). I mean if you measure
*something interesting* with a meter stick and the measurement totals to
100 m, then use a "millimeter stick", you will get 100 m accumulated, even
if you are very careful. And it is still just an analogy

David A. Smith

"Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
...
"L" == Laura writes:

L "Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in
L message ...
Laura wrote:
"the wonderer" wrote in
message:news:5b4cddc8.0405251730.340e6e5a@posting. google.com...

i recently saw a video titled "the astronomers". one of the
scientists in the video made the statement that the big bang
didn't happen at a point in space, but rather "everywhere at
once". is this a new concept or have i just missed it all these
years?

I think what that scientist referred to was that at the time of
the big bang, "everywhere" was just that tiny particle which
would explode and expand into the universe we know.

No, as Bjoern says, the Big Bang refers to a point in *time*.

As far as I have understood, there was no time before the big bang either.
Still, it can be expressed as a point in time - the very first one.


In the past the Universe was hotter and denser. Ignore the
concentrations of matter that we see as galaxies. Imagine that the
Universe consists of a uniform sea of particles. Then in the past,
the distances between particles was smaller, and the temperature was
higher. That's it. If there is an infinite number of particles, then
we have an infinite number of particles coming infinitesimally close
to each other at a finite time in the past.

Yes, that's pretty much how I understand it. That would, relatively
speaking, render the universe smaller than it is now, wouldn't it?


Err, now, not necessarily. If the universe is flat or open, it has
an infinite volume, and always had. Hence it never was a "tiny
particle".

L Well, tiny is a misnomer, really. There was nothing with which to
L compare it, and it was everything, so it could be argued that it
L was very large as well. Size is relevant only when it's relative
L :-) Is this flat universe concept you refer to the only serious
L model being considered?

The data certainly seem to suggest a flat Universe. By this, we mean
that the geometry is Euclidean. For example, if you measure the
interior angles of a triangle, no matter how big the sides of the
triangle are, the sum of the angles will always be 180 degrees.
Similarly, parallel lines continue forever, never meeting.

I see what you mean. If we translate ourselves to two-dimensional beings,
then the universe is like an inflating balloon, and we're moving around on
the surface of it.


Such a Universe has an infinite volume. Always has and always will.

Because no matter how much or how little it is inflated, things moving on
the surface of the balloon can move forever without reaching the end.


The problem most people have is that popular descriptions of the Big
Bang describe it as occurring from a singularity, implying that a
singularity is a point in space. It need not be. A singularity can
be a volume. If the density becomes infinite in the past, then that's
a singularity.

A singularity is something of infinite density and infinitesimal volume. At
least, that's what I learned.
Such a singularity can be a point in space, yes, but it can also be just a
point, without the space.
Or, if you prefer, a volume, but one that is infinitesimal.


[...]
There is no space, at least not as we know it, beyond the
current boundaries of the universe, just as there wasn't any
before the big bang.

The universe *has* no boundaries.

L No? I would think, if it is expanding, it must have a boundary of
L some sort. I know we can't see it, or ever get there, but if there
L were no boundaries, how can we talk of expansion? Please explain
L why I'm wrong.

What's the boundary of the Earth's surface? Where on the Earth's
surface can you walk to the "edge"? Some things don't have
boundaries.

Well, one certainly can't walk to the edge, but there is a boundary - space.
It can never be reached by creatures able to move only two-dimensionally,
but add a third dimension, and it becomes possible. So then, isn't it a
matter of the universe having no boundaries in terms of three dimensional
space, yet having boundaries at higher dimensions?


The best way to think about the expansion of the Universe is in the
following sense. Consider a one-dimensional distribution of
particles:


---*---*---*---*---*--- [assume that this extends to
infinity in both directions]

After some time, the distances between the particles have increased or
our one-dimensional universe has expanded to

- - - * - - - * - - - * - - - * - - - * - - -