Big Bang as an ex nihilo argument?

[Mitbulls]

I am far from being an actual scientist, so I post this only as a question and may not be able to defend any part of it very well should arguments or questions get over my head.

I've often heard some proponents of the Big Bang propose that the universe began with all of the matter in the universe compressed into a tiny space, smaller than an atom. There are problems with this, though:

1. The universe has a given amount of mass
2. Mass cannot be created or destroyed
3. Space is not infinitely divisible (i.e. there can be no such thing as infinite density)

Even if you allow for forces within this pre-Big Bang atom to reduce actual mass slightly (as in the case of the cellular nucleus), it doesn't make much sense to assume that all of the matter in the universe could be so tightly compressed.

Obviously I haven't thought this out much, just thought I'd throw it out to see the opinions the more scientific types.

[lucaspa]

I am far from being an actual scientist, so I post this only as a question and may not be able to defend any part of it very well should arguments or questions get over my head.

I've often heard some proponents of the Big Bang propose that the universe began with all of the matter in the universe compressed into a tiny space, smaller than an atom. There are problems with this, though:

1. The universe has a given amount of mass
2. Mass cannot be created or destroyed
3. Space is not infinitely divisible (i.e. there can be no such thing as infinite density)

Even if you allow for forces within this pre-Big Bang atom to reduce actual mass slightly (as in the case of the cellular nucleus), it doesn't make much sense to assume that all of the matter in the universe could be so tightly compressed.

Obviously I haven't thought this out much, just thought I'd throw it out to see the opinions the more scientific types.
There are many misconceptions about the BB. You have several. The March 2005 issue of Scientific American has an excellent article explaining the BB and misconceptions about it. I suggest you go to your nearest public library and read it.

Remember that mass and energy are the same thing. E = mc^2. So, the BB is when space, time, and matter/energy all came into existence. Spacetime was infinitely small, too. The energy was infinitely dense in an infinitely small space. There was no "atom". The BB was much too hot for matter -- atoms -- to exist. The universe had to expand and thus cool enough in order for matter to "freeze out" of the hot energy.

So, rather than have matter "compressed" into an existing space, both spacetime and matter/energy came into existence at the BB.

Under General Relativity, space is infinitely divisible. That is, space is continuous. So you can always make a smaller space. In quantum mechanics, entities come in "lumps" or quanta. Discrete sizes. Which is one of the reasons why GR and QM have not been reconciled as yet. There is a theory called Loop Quantum Gravity which does view space as quantized -- what you call "not infinitely divisible". It is a rival theory to String Theory. I think the Jan. 2005 Scientific American had an article about this. Maybe earlier. Look that one up too.

Of course, there is a rival theory to BB called "ekpyrotic theory" which eliminates the singularity of the BB. But it has even more theological problems. Charleen and I have been discussing that in the "?'s for Progressive Creationists, TEs, " thread. Come join us.

[George Murphy]

I am far from being an actual scientist, so I post this only as a question and may not be able to defend any part of it very well should arguments or questions get over my head.

I've often heard some proponents of the Big Bang propose that the universe began with all of the matter in the universe compressed into a tiny space, smaller than an atom. There are problems with this, though:

1. The universe has a given amount of mass
2. Mass cannot be created or destroyed
3. Space is not infinitely divisible (i.e. there can be no such thing as infinite density)

Even if you allow for forces within this pre-Big Bang atom to reduce actual mass slightly (as in the case of the cellular nucleus), it doesn't make much sense to assume that all of the matter in the universe could be so tightly compressed.

Lucas' comments on the BB should be helpful to you. Let me address a few specific statements of yours, starting with the last paragraph.

Gravitation is the weakest of the fundamental interactions but if you get enough mass (energy) together it beats everything else. Eventually nothing can stop gravitational collapse. (Nothing, that is, except exotic phenomena that may or may not exist.) That's why black holes form. If you think of the cosmic expansion being reversed (just hit the rewind button!) you would see collapse, & near the big bang nothing would be able to stop it. It would continue on to a state of infinite density and space-time curvature.

Sort of. The "singularity" at the beginning of the expansion, like the singularity at the center of a black hole, isn't really a "place" where something strange, like infinite density, occurs. It's not a "place" at all. A singularity actually means that space-time is incomplete, as if a bit were ripped out of it.

Shalom,
George

[bigsplit]

I am far from being an actual scientist, so I post this only as a question and may not be able to defend any part of it very well should arguments or questions get over my head.

I've often heard some proponents of the Big Bang propose that the universe began with all of the matter in the universe compressed into a tiny space, smaller than an atom. There are problems with this, though:

1. The universe has a given amount of mass
2. Mass cannot be created or destroyed
3. Space is not infinitely divisible (i.e. there can be no such thing as infinite density)

Even if you allow for forces within this pre-Big Bang atom to reduce actual mass slightly (as in the case of the cellular nucleus), it doesn't make much sense to assume that all of the matter in the universe could be so tightly compressed.

Obviously I haven't thought this out much, just thought I'd throw it out to see the opinions the more scientific types.

You intuitions are correct, the idea of a singularity was never accepted by Einstein himself. It is a purely mathematical model that defies the laws of physics. By using terms like "infinately small" confuses most people as well it should, because it makes absolutely no sense, not even to those who support such science fiction. But, the math works so it must be correct, no matter how proposterous it is. It is all about what happens inside a black hole and the singularity that allegidly resides there. This makes no sense either, but without it, the concept of the Big Bang has nothing to rest on. The fact is unless we can look beyond the Event Horizon of a Black Hole, and we never will, there will never be empirical evidence for the singularity, just math.

A much more logical conclusion is that all the energy in the Universe has always existed infinately. It was in a homogenous form with no dynamics or mass to allow GR to occur. This homogenous energy decayed into opposite charges and the dynamics began. The energy began to clump and form mass, thus gravity through spacetime. Beyond our Universe, and there is a 3 dimensional beyond, this homogenous energy exists infinately (not a circle) but goes on enternally. The only singularity that is necessary is where t=0 and GR has no meaning, this can be done with the 4th dimension only. There is no need to eliminate the other 3 dimensions....none. As a matter for debate by extending the singularity to the 3 proper dimensions is a blatant violation of occum's razor.

Do not be so quick to cast aside your intuition and common sense. Many brilliant young scholars do so way too quickly and in doing so join the cult of brilliant science fictionist. However, I caution you, if you do decide to study physics or astronomy, be careful....dissent will bring the "standard model" zealots out in defense of their research dollars. Here is an article I found recently on the subject of singlularities.


http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/050328-8.html

[Mitbulls]

A much more logical conclusion is that all the energy in the Universe has always existed infinately.

How would this work with thermodynamics and entropy though?

Universe has always existed infinately. It was in a homogenous form with no dynamics or mass to allow GR to occur. This homogenous energy decayed into opposite charges and the dynamics began. The energy began to clump and form mass, thus gravity through spacetime. Beyond our Universe, and there is a 3 dimensional beyond, this homogenous energy exists infinately (not a circle) but goes on enternally. The only singularity that is necessary is where t=0 and GR has no meaning, this can be done with the 4th dimension only. There is no need to eliminate the other 3 dimensions....none. As a matter for debate by extending the singularity to the 3 proper dimensions is a blatant violation of occum's razor.
[QUOTE]

This does seem a little easier to swallow than an "infinitely small" singularity, but it still seems to have a few problems. First, one has to wonder what would cause homogenous energy (which is infinite) to suddenly decay into matter, and why it only occurs within a certain specific area. It might be possible for energy to exist infinitely beyond our Universe, but that doesn't really explain why or how our universe developed...

[QUOTE]Do not be so quick to cast aside your intuition and common sense. Many brilliant young scholars do so way too quickly and in doing so join the cult of brilliant science fictionist. However, I caution you, if you do decide to study physics or astronomy, be careful....dissent will bring the "standard model" zealots out in defense of their research dollars. Here is an article I found recently on the subject of singlularities.


I've never been one to give up too easily, I'm always questioning everything (hence the title).

[bigsplit]

[QUOTE=Mitbulls]How would this work with thermodynamics and entropy though?

[QUOTE]

Pure energy, vie E=MCsqd, that is infinately homogenious is the simplest form our Universe could ever assume or have assumed. This is the only nothing that is possible. It is the only conceivable state that the Universe could obtain in order for there ever to have been a t=0. There would be no charge differencial nor density deviation. Absolutly no dynamic would be occuring in which the measurement of time is possible. This is an infinate 3D "singularity".

As we see in the atomic world through beta decay neutrons splitting for no apparent reason. Neutrons do not last long outside the atom either. Neutrinos are said to be very unstable. Some say that there is a lazy streak in these neutral masses. They are looking for their lowest rest mass. This is how the decay of "nothing" occured, the natural instability of neutralality. Decays happen at a speed less than the speed of light to my understanding. When the electrodynamics started, so did time simultaniously. This differencially charged energy began its clumping into matter and heated up very rapidly. There were galaxy cluster to quantum vorticies generated in this period intense mass development. Further still gravity began and it propagates at the speed of light and began its race to chase down the decay. Gravity finally caught up, stopping the decay and closing the then sphereical spinning Universe.

This sphere had a disproportionate about of mass in the center, because there is where is got its headstart. Being that the system, our Universe, was now closed, there was a hydrodynamic effect where the highest pressure center began a move towards the edge of the system causing a reheating of the Universe. This generated a funnel shaped galaxy with a Picard topography as elaborated by the Steiner Group at the University of Ulm. The expansion of our Universe is not inflationay, but it is rather the decaying of the spin of the original sphere by the radial gravitational force generated by the universal attractor at the vertex, former center, of the funnel. When the attractor resided in the center of the sphere it was the engine that generated the spin, as the center moved to the edge it drags space time with it and destroys the spin.

Does that answer you question?