Everything? Or everything we observe within the bangzone? Why can't there be another bangzone with another periodic table and other subatomic particles just up the road? That we can't see it doesn't prove it doesn't exist.
Because we haven't seen or detected anything else. Keep in mind that the BBT does not speak to what existed before the BB. As Norris touched on, one thought is that before the BB perhaps there was a universe. Maybe with the heat death of the universe or some other tipping point, the universe stops expanding and contracts to form the conditions necessary for the BB. Who knows? The idea of the BBT is that every bit of matter and energy in the universe now was formed/spawned from a massive event. So anything concerning something "else" would 1) not be the BBT and 2) would be baseless, as we know of nothing "else"
I think it's called the recurring bang theory and I've been with it for years. Even if it doesn't recur, the theory is that all the mass in the universe was in a very dense ball. (I heard someone once posed that the ball measured 13 miles in diameter.)was there dimension outside the ball? If so, wasn't it already infinite?
I agree on everything you stated. There was nothing beyond the ball. Not even space, just nothing. These are concepts we can quantify but not fully imagine or comprehend
That means the nothingness of empty space does not amount to the somethingness of empty space, i guess.
Not so, re: starting and ending. Time has no role. When you start an action, you aren't measuring the time elapsed between no action and action. You are measuring the effect of no action vs action. You can measure the time between those two bounds, and can conclude something took longer than expected to start or end, or shorter, or exactly as expected. But that is just the time between action and no action. It isn't a measure of the action itself. The measure of the action is whether there was an action, or not. Which can be viewed as stated: every action has a previous action. Since all previous actions have a previous action, there is no starting action or ending action. Thus a circle.
Not really. Suppose a number line is infinite. Is it surprising that a given number is on that line? No. It's infinite.
I'm not a physicist, but I think we're falling into a semantics issue. space has dimensions. Before the big bang, there were no dimensions beyond that initial singularity. And even now, there is an ever-expanding edge of the universe, beyond which there is literally nothing, not even empty space. It's just "the end" Or at least that is what the current thinking is as I understand it.
Surprising as compared to what? Again, no matter how small the probability of something, it becomes absolutely certain to occur as the number of rolls of the dice approaches infinite. CERTAIN. The odds/tiny numbers arguments are meaningless because the rolls of the dice or literally and figuratively astronomical.
As far as we can tell, the universe is "flat". And if so, it is actually infinite in size. So when it is expanding, it is expanding into itself. The Big Bang happened everywhere at once, and the Universe has no center or boundary. That is one of the ideas that has come to the forefront now that we have evidence that the universe is indeed flat.
Hadn't read that. Do you have a link or direction to point me in? I believe you, just wanna check it out.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/623-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into-intermediate [video=youtube;blSTTFS8Uco]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blSTTFS8Uco[/video]
Oddly enough I was reading on this topic yesterday and came across this forum (link). Post #25 is where it starts to pickup with some good information regarding this subject. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite.604953/page-2 Some of it is definitely over my head but it's definitely a good read. It goes on for a few pages....
