Misconceptions about the Big Bang

Scientific American ^ | March 2005 | Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis

[TigersEye]

Like Darwinian evolution, cosmic expansion provides the context within which simple structures form and develop over time into complex structures. Without evolution and expansion, modern biology and cosmology make little sense.

The structural complexity of the simplest one-celled organism far exceeds the complexity of joining together individual cells in a cooperative way to make multi-celled organisms.

[Capitalism2003]

"The structural complexity of the simplest one-celled organism far exceeds the complexity of joining together individual cells in a cooperative way to make multi-celled organisms."

I've been saying that for years.

[TigersEye]

Really? I should listen to you more often!

[Williams]

Truly nothing new here move along. These are the same explanations/ analogies I have been reading since I was a kid. My best guess is the physicists still don't know what they are talking about, whether the reason is religion or not.

[aruanan]

The expansion of the universe may be the most important fact we have ever discovered about our origins.

The supposed expansion of the universe. Once people latched on to the concept of stellar red shift as an indication of recessional velocity, everything else was redefined (or ignored as anomalous) to fit.

[Falcon4.0]

and BANG, there was light and it was good.

[jwalsh07]

Then we won't discuss how virtual particle pairs appear spontaneously from the neutral vacuum!

Probably not a good idea not to discuss time dependent events before time existed, you lose every time.

[doc30]

An accelerating universe, then, resembles a black hole in that it has an event horizon, an edge beyond which we cannot see.

I like this statement. It makes me wonder if we are really inside a black hole. Could the collapse of matter under gravity continue indefinitely? Could more and more space be generated "inside" (and I use the term very loosely) a black hole that would appear as an expansionary universe to an observer inside the even horizon of a black hole? Could "nested" black holes either one, or a cluster of singularities with their own unique even horizons, exist with a common event horizon relative to an observer outside this event horizon? Just doing some pre-caffiene speculation.

[linear]

You are right - in the end it all comes down to nomenclature. ;-)

[Publius6961]

Saved to read later.

I can hardly wait for the central question, which science has been tap-dancing around forever. The explanation for:

First there was nothing; then it exploded.

[Physicist]

Just doing some pre-caffiene speculation.

Pretty sharp, I'd say. Some theorists have been thinking along those lines for 20 years. Google up the term "chaotic inflation".

According to inflationary theory, the universe itself is a black hole, so the speculation that the interior of a black hole is, subjectively, a universe unto itself is well-founded.

[Physicist]

I can hardly wait for the central question, which science has been tap-dancing around forever. The explanation for:

First there was nothing; then it exploded.

It would help if you explained why you have difficulty with that concept. Is it a causality issue, or that you don't personally know the mechanism that drives the expansion?

[Publius6961]

Is it a causality issue, or that you don't personally know the mechanism that drives the expansion?

Both.
The physical universe defines things and mechanisms.

Before the universe existed, therefore, there is nothing to discuss, including causality and the reality that no one personally knows or can know what created something that doesn't exist.

[RadioAstronomer]

Here ya go:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html

[TigerTale]

Then we won't discuss how virtual particle pairs appear spontaneously from the neutral vacuum!

Oh, let's do! I'm a little fuzzy on that myself. The vacuum has energy, and "contains" space--so technically it's not "nothing." Right? Or am I confused?

Can't we say that even the pre-Big Bang singularity had--at a minimum--mass, and so was not "nothing?"

If you can explain the phenomenon of vacuum energy in layman's terms, I would appreciate it.

[TigerTale]

The vacuum has energy, and "contains" space--so technically it's not "nothing." Right? Or am I confused?

Can't we say that even the pre-Big Bang singularity had--at a minimum--mass, and so was not "nothing?"

If you can explain the phenomenon of vacuum energy in layman's terms, I would appreciate it.

Sorry, this previous post was intended for SubMareener.

[Physicist]

But the universe doesn't have any requirement--mathematical or philosophical--that anything come "before" it, just as there's no requirement for anything to be south of the South Pole. Causality presupposes time, and time presupposes the universe. The universe doesn't require a cause.

[munchtipq]

Awesome article. I thought I understood the Big Bang. I didn't. I still don't, not really, but at least now I know that I don't.

[RadioAstronomer]

See post 34

[ASA Vet]

Thank you again.

If there were a Science Forum would the SN's still come?