The Big Bang theory...

[TrAI]

Hmmm.. I am not sure where to post this question, but I guess the AtM is as good as any...

I was thinking about how the universe was formed, and I started to wonder if the Big Bang theory could be defined a metatheory?

Now, the thing is that there seems to be several hypotheses about the more specific parts, but all seems to either support an expansion that brought the universe into being in its wake or an eternal universe. So, could one think of the Big Bang Theory like just "The metatheory stating that the universe was created and expanded" and if a hypothesis that better explained something than one of the sub theories, you would just exchange that part. Or is the name Big Bang Theory locked to a specific series of possible hypoteses?

I am asking since many people seems fond of saying they don't think the Big Bang theory is correct, but it seems some of them don't think the universe always have been around... To me that seems like it is just details around the theory they are critical to, not the premise that the universe was created and expanded...

Or am I so far out there now that I might see one of the Voyager probes in a handfull of decades?

[George]

Hmmm.. I am not sure where to post this question, but I guess the AtM is as good as any...

I was thinking about how the universe was formed, and I started to wonder if the Big Bang theory could be defined a metatheory?

Now, the thing is that there seems to be several hypotheses about the more specific parts, but all seems to either support an expansion that brought the universe into being in its wake or an eternal universe. So, could one think of the Big Bang Theory like just "The metatheory stating that the universe was created and expanded" and if a hypothesis that better explained something than one of the sub theories, you would just exchange that part. Or is the name Big Bang Theory locked to a specific series of possible hypoteses?

A Metatheory is "a formal system that describes the structure of some other system." Remember, a theory in itself must be "overarching". A "good" theory must have a hypothesis that can be verified. [That's about all I know on this, sorry]

I am asking since many people seems fond of saying they don't think the Big Bang theory is correct, but it seems some of them don't think the universe always have been around... To me that seems like it is just details around the theory they are critical to, not the premise that the universe was created and expanded...

Historically, everyone seemed to think the universe was infinite and static. Einstein had the first real clue with his field equations but added his famous "cosomological constant" to hold the universe static. Along came Hubble and things got exciting.

The basic main supporting evidence for the Big Bang can be found right over yonder >>> Big Bang Bullets <<< [first post]

Many of these items were predicted and then found such as the smooth cosmic microwave background.

[TrAI]

A Metatheory is "a formal system that describes the structure of some other system." Remember, a theory in itself must be "overarching". A "good" theory must have a hypothesis that can be verified. [That's about all I know on this, sorry]

I guess the word metatheory may not be a good one... What I was thinking is that there only seems to be two possibilities(at least as I can think of now), either an eternal universe or a variation on the Big Bang theory. And that all variations on the theme of a universe that are created and expands, is a subhypotesis of the Big Bang theory, so that BB is a root theory...

The hypoteses should be possible to hierarchicaly map under their root theory...

[squeak]

Regarding the big bang theory I have this question for the experts:

What *is* the current status regarding a finite nature of the universe?

I am a little confused as my poor wittle fragile mind cannot successfully wrap itself around the concept of "infinity". If the big bang started with infinite matter in an infinitesimal space, and the universe is believed to be infinite, once the "bang" occured wouldn't that be an *instant* change to infinite? Hence, the universe would not be "expanding" as it would already be at "infinity".. all matter would start out evenly distributed and eventually coalesce but expansion would be moot as it would have been an instant change..?

Assuming that the current view is that the universe is infinite, am I looking at this incorrectly?

[George]

I guess the word metatheory may not be a good one... What I was thinking is that there only seems to be two possibilities(at least as I can think of now), either an eternal universe or a variation on the Big Bang theory. And that all variations on the theme of a universe that are created and expands, is a subhypotesis of the Big Bang theory, so that BB is a root theory...

The hypoteses should be possible to hierarchicaly map under their root theory...

Actually, the M-Theory (?) may be the big daddy. As branes touch, "bangs" happen.

The Steady State Theory is still out there, too, but is not highly supported near as I can see. It is a little different than the older static theory.

I do not think the BBT rules out infinite space but limits energy and matter within it, apparently.

[George]

Regarding the big bang theory I have this question for the experts:

What *is* the current status regarding a finite nature of the universe?

Is that all you want to ask them?

As bigger colliders fire-up, they will be able to see more as to what's out there (or is that "in there"?). I have been reading a little of Brian Greene's book - Fabric of the Cosmos that is a no-math read of the physics side of the universe. Much hope is in finding the Higgs Ocean to explain why gravity/inertia does what it does.

[squeak]

Regarding the big bang theory I have this question for the experts:

What *is* the current status regarding a finite nature of the universe?

Is that all you want to ask them?

I guess to be honest I feel intimidated in making *any* speculations as I do not have all the facts. But yet we always have our ideas, so I figured presenting them to those who know more than I do would prove valuable.

Interfacing with some of the "experts" (relative to me, anyways) has proven a greatly entertaining educational experience for me. In any case, I'm glad I found this board; I ran across it while searching for a fictitious asteroid that "Maxim" had written about (I hate it when they present fiction as fact.. but it *is* a generally tongue-in-cheek publication).

[George]

Regarding the big bang theory I have this question for the experts:

What *is* the current status regarding a finite nature of the universe?

Is that all you want to ask them?

I guess to be honest I feel intimidated in making *any* speculations as I do not have all the facts. But yet we always have our ideas, so I figured presenting them to those who know more than I do would prove valuable.

Interfacing with some of the "experts" (relative to me, anyways) has proven a greatly entertaining educational experience for me. In any case, I'm glad I found this board; I ran across it while searching for a fictitious asteroid that "Maxim" had written about (I hate it when they present fiction as fact.. but it *is* a generally tongue-in-cheek publication).

I am here mainly on heart, not too much mind , and only since last fall. This board has rekindled my astronomy interest only last . The debunking aspect sets a tone for truth. Hopefully, as I learn, I will be able to produce some occasional enlightenment.

Glad you're aboard. Hope we can help each other.

[Trakar]

Regarding the big bang theory I have this question for the experts:

What *is* the current status regarding a finite nature of the universe?

I am a little confused as my poor wittle fragile mind cannot successfully wrap itself around the concept of "infinity". If the big bang started with infinite matter in an infinitesimal space, and the universe is believed to be infinite, once the "bang" occured wouldn't that be an *instant* change to infinite? Hence, the universe would not be "expanding" as it would already be at "infinity".. all matter would start out evenly distributed and eventually coalesce but expansion would be moot as it would have been an instant change..?

Assuming that the current view is that the universe is infinite, am I looking at this incorrectly?

(Well, I always heard that an "expert" was an individual who had made every mistake possible within a very narrow and specialized field of study.
I am no expert, but, I do have some understandings.)


I feel you have correctly identified your weakness, as a difficult conceptualization of "infinity."
An infinity is not a closed maximum parameter, it can grow, expand and multiply. If the infinite space-time grows and infinite mass-energy does not, the average infinite mass-energy levels of infinite space-time decrease.