In the big bang model of the Universe, every observable thing is thought to have expanded very abruptly from a point of infinite density and zero volume.
Thats not quite true. Have a look at Wikipedia where you can read this:
"Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[18] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity and thus, all the laws of physics. How closely this can be extrapolated toward the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[19] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[20][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our universe."
You can't necessarily extrapolate back all the way to a point singularity.
However, the problem with this assertion is that for something to expand it first needs a locality in which to do such, which brings us to my question.
There's no problem with space expanding. Don't think of space as nothing, Einstein didn't, and nor do modern physicists such as Nobel prizewinner Robert B Laughlin.
How can scientists believe that "everything" was condensed and then suddenly expanded, since such is automatically an oxymoron?
Because there's good scientific evidence that the universe is expanding. And when you "wind back the clock" you find that all the galaxies were in the same place 13.8 billion years ago.
Expansion is a physical property of the universe and yet if "everything" had no where to expand, how could it have expanded? There was "nothing," was there not?
No. Space expanded, and space isn't nothing. As to what caused the big bang to occur, I don't know. Nor do I know what the universe was like 13.8 billion years ago. But I know of no infinities in nature, and I would challenge the alleged point singularity at the centre of a black hole and refer instead to the frozen star interpretation. In similar vein I would challenge the alleged point-singularity 13.8 billion years ago.
Even if we drop the big bang model and talk about "everything's" being in a singularity point, the question still stands. Where was the singularity point?
I think you shouldn't drop the big bang model, but instead you should drop the singularity.
Asked differently, into what is everything expanding?
Nothing. I know this is hard to imagine, but try to. Space is expanding, and there is no space beyond it. So there is no beyond it. As to whether this means you end up coming back round full circle or the universe is some "hall of mirrors" or something else, I don't know.
(which is a rhetorical question I ask to implicate space-time as necessarily existing irrespective of any theoretical expansion and likely so vastly that one might as well assume that space-time is infinitely large).
No, one might not. Because the universe doesn't expand for nothing. It expands because space has a kind of innate "pressure", as per the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor. And if the universe was infinite, the pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. An infinite universe could not expand.
When thinking about the big-bang model, I can't help but conclude that a mere analogy was originally used
For an analogy, get a stress ball and squeeze it down in your fist. Then let go.
The issue though is still extension. As far as I understood it, the big bang model states that space itself was also condensed along with everything else in the observable universe to a point of singularity.
See what I said above. Big bang cosmology doesn't actually say everything was condensed to point singularity.
All the matter had to expand somewhere
There wasn't any matter initially. Remember the wave nature of matter, and pair production. We can quite literally make matter out of electromagnetic waves. These wave propagate through space, and are effectively wave sin space. So we make matter out of waves in space. So start with space, and do somehting to it such that it rings like a bell and is full of waves and starts expanding. As to what, I don't know.
How does the theory allege where everything is yet at the same time assert that prior to the singularity point, there was literally nothing?
It doesn't. It goes back as far as a very dense universe. The stuff you hear about a point singularity and creation ex-nihilo is popscience, not big bang cosmology.
No comments:
Post a Comment