The term 'Big Bang' is just a term we use to describe what the 'event' looked like in the four dimensions of space-time that we can sorta almost
comprehend in our human minds. It wasn't 'big' and it wasn't a 'bang'.
A better image is the graphic that "Blue Shift" has posted above that sorta looks like a donut continually spitting 'stuff' out of its center (the
'big bang' ) that then moves around the torus to be swallowed back into the center (the 'big crunch'). That is an attempt to picture a five dimension
process. Our minds are not built to 'picture' 5 dimensions (4 is already very tough), but we can use mathematics to describe many dimensions.
Read Stephen Hawkings book 'A Brief History of Time' for a better explanation than I could ever give. Just remember that ABHOT is several years out of
date and our understanding of the universe continues to move on.
but in the vacuum of space sound waves can't travel (I don't think). I think that means it was a very silent, but violent eruption (if the
big bang truly happened, after all it is still a theory)
The Big Bang did not occur in the 'vacuum of space'. It was the BEGINNING of space-time.
But you are right, there would have been no sound, just a plazma with a lot of free quarks (no atoms yet, not even electrons or protons or neutrons
yet) running around with way too much energy to form into particles until the universe was big enough to 'cool down' so that the electromagnetic force
could start functioning. That is the time the 'cosmic radiation background' was 'born'.
How does mathematics describe the Donut /Blue shift theory within Your sceintific community. That describes what you state here:
A better image is the graphic that "Blue Shift" has posted above that sorta looks like a donut continually spitting 'stuff' out of its center (the
'big bang' ) that then moves around the torus to be swallowed back into the center (the 'big crunch').
How do they calculate this [donut continually spitting 'stuff' out of its center (the 'big bang' ) that then moves around the torus to be swallowed
back into the center] From observations they cant observe?
Well that's just it. If everything emited from the bang eventually has to come right back where it started as per the 5th dimension 'theory?'
So eventually what blew up gets reconstructed.... But doesn't time affect thatf dimension? I mean decay... Rot... Or degradation? Nothing is forever
unless it takes from something else at least that is why I think the Big Bang had everything, and the explosion left us with less.
I am not a mathematician, sorry. I am pretty sure I grasp the basics of the concepts but I am not a mathematician.
The fundamental idea is that space-time is not infinite, but it is not bounded either. This concept is straightforward to understand: the Earth is a 3
dimensional object that is neither infinite or bounded - it is a sphere (approximately). Likewise Space-time can be 'viewed' as a 4 dimensional
"sphere" (or a 5 dimensional torus). Of course this is just a mathematical mind map; Stephen Hawking (who thought up the model) makes no bones about
it being anything more than a 'proposal' - but one that makes it easier to think about what is happening.
The geometry involved is called "Euclidean Space-TIme", and involves 'imaginary time' using multiples of i (the square root of -1). i is
an imaginary number because we can only imagine the square root of minus one, unlike the square root of, say, 4 which is a real number. In Euclidean
Space-Time there is no distinction between the 3 dimensions of space and time; time is just another dimension.
For a better description than I could ever offer, I again highly recommend that you refer to Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time",
especially chapter 8.
I have to apologize here, because I was sure I remembered the 'torus' analogy from Hawking's book but I cannot find it now - I can only find his image
based on a 4D sphere. (Weird - where did I see it just recently?).
Anyway here is an animated video of the concept I found for use in another thread. It is a 5D torus shape wherein the Big Bang singularity does not
exist, just a continuum from a Big Crunch to a Big Bang. It does not require any new physics to explain what goes on in a singularity because there
are no singularities.
edit on 30/8/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)
edit on 30/8/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)
In these lectures from MIT i think you will understand what the Math of a Euclidean Space-Time is, if you watch all 15 lectures. I think many People
just take these Mathematical Equations of a specific Space/universe and think they are real. But it is just Math used to explain calucules one would
have to use in observations to solve what you see or measure. This is also explained when the teacher goes through the Equations in detail.
In these videos the lectures are based on the standard Big Bang theory in a very well manner.
There are about 15 lectures, but i will only poste 3 of them. They are guite long but very well described lectures. But if you watch all of them the
lectures moves towards the different Euclidean Equations which you are looking into.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
I guess we won't know for sure until we go through the crunch.....
There cant be a crunch. Our universe cant collapse because nothing is faster than the speed of light. That means gravity is slower than the speed of
light within Our expanding universe.