There is no way in hell they can know this.. they just come up with theories that make them sound smart.

One poster asks how the universe could expand so quickly, vastly exceeding the velocity of light. The expansion of space-time is not constrained by c as is the propagation of energy within space-time. The two are vastly different properties of the universe. Another poster asks how can so much matter be present in an object the size of a marble. Consider a black hole. Here we have the mass of several suns, or, in the case of some galactic cores, the mass of several billion suns, concentrated into an infinitely small space - a singularity. From this perspective, having the entire matter/energy of universe concentrated in the space of a marble is no feat at all. Of course, there is nothing *outside* the marble, not even space-time itself, so I guess the concept is fundamentally different.

I don't think you can say there is nothing outside of the original marble. We just don't know/can't see what's outside of it because our current methods of observation (electromagnetic radiation) is restricted to what's in our spherical universe (since light will eventually return to the same point, like on the inner surface of a balloon).

Besides, time is a man-made concept and has circular logic to it as well. If time is relative as well, I don't see why light-speed expansion couldn't have happened in one trillionth of a second. Could time dilation account for that?

its theorized that all the matter that makes up this universe was already hear before the big bang. the big bang can be described as a point of high energy. that point of extreme high energy gave life to the matter that was here already in some kind of dormant state. super string theorists say that it might be possible to explain the origins of this occurrence by including the existence of another dimension - one that is part of the 3rd dimension - but in a different state. Our dimension collided with the other 3rd dimension - and like your finger would cause a ripple in a body of water if you touched it, our universe was BANGed into life to life: BAM. the real question then becomes: what do the dimensions exist within, and so on, and so on. another interesting aspect of this is that if the two dimensions in/of the 3rd did collided, then have they collided before, and will they collide again?

Oh yes this is all so plausible. And of course we should spend more money to understand the dynamics that make this seem reasonable.
Or are these just "looney tunes' from some folks that make assumptions that have no basis in reality? ( And get a paycheck while doing same?) Like, how do you know what you are observing is the light just befor e the big bang.? It maybe last weeks' party next door, or just fuzz in the lens. Yeah, i know you correct for red shift and all that, but the fact is the story falls apart the further back you posit that alll the ""laws" we have discovered were in effect back then. Were there pre- Big bang conditions that do not conform to post big bang conditions, and perhaps there are interim big bang conditions we have no knowledge or evidence of.

I read this post and was interested enough to reply... Though I am not actually qualified in this area.

>Then again, the physical laws of the universe
were just being established at this moment, so
anything could have happened.
But, if the laws were in flux, then
how can we make any sense of whats going on?

Relatvity suggests that time and gravity are inverses of each other. If the origin of the universe was a "marble sized object" then, relative to our understanding of time, one trillionth of a second later the universe had expanded. However, relative to the size and density - and therefore time - of the origin, perhaps it happened over a much greater amount of relative time.

I look forward to any replies on this assertion.

P

I have only 2 questions.

1. Which trillionth of a second we are talking about?

1x 10-12 (pico) or 1x 10-18 (atto) ?

2. How was the measurement done?

My own opinion on the problem of how could the universe have expanded at a rate faster than the limitations of the speed of light:

There shouldn't be any controversy here. The limitation is for any object/force travelling through the medium of space/time. The limitation does not apply to space/time itself.

Not that I know anything about theoretical physics...I study linguistics.

How could an object the size of a marble make an explosion that big? Well first of all what you have to fathom is that the space between sub-atomic particles in this marble-sized ball was absolutely miniscule. They may not even have been sub-atomic particles as we know them, it's very possible they were sub-sub-atomic particles like quarks, or even what makes up a quark. Recently, a neutron star with aberrant properties was discovered by scientists using some sort of radio or x-ray detection array. What they discovered was that this neutron star may not of been made out of neutrons at all, but rather quarks with a coating of neutrons or maybe something else entirely.

Also, on the speed of light-

The speed of light is simply the frequency of electron 'pings' against possible space-time locations. No electrons, no light. No destination, no visible light. Duh.

Also, if you guys knew anything about the theory of relativity you'd know that the speed of light is not impossible to attain. IN FACT, ZOMG, PHOTONS DO IT ALL THE TIME. It just takes a REALLY BIG ammount of energy for big masses to achieve the speed of light. Noone ever said the masses which were travelling were really big.

What you need to read and understand is that during the Hadronic era the rules governing particles, masses, and therefor 'time' were radically different.

Please excuse me Paul. However the the bit about `The Universe at the instant of the `big bang' expanded to Trillions times it size in a Trillionth of a second' mearly has figure of speach value of meaning `A lot' analoguous to `Forty days and nights' value of meaning `A long time'

Just looking at the word `second' lacks parameters of who's/when/where!
If the `initial state' of just prior to to the big bang was something like an extermly overgrown `Black hole' then the `Duration of a second' at that moment of `point of start' moment would be an Eternity compared to our relative perception of a `second nowerdays' because as the Universe expands the `density of space' lessens and`seconds always fly faster' than they do in `locals of higher density space'

Some might even go further that there wasnt even 3D space prior to the bang let alone T (In our persepion of `how much it is - quality' to what things are Today)

Furthermore `Size' would have to mean 3D volume - And then - Taking the cube root of a thousand = 1000 ( in terms if linear distance in any direction is not teribly much at all)

{But then why should i point out ambiguity of real meaning when i cant get my spelling right when i ad-lib/generate a post and as soon as i haved typed the last word - press post. (Well as a consequence of my job talking on the phones flat out talking 8 hours a day - I hardly need to thing `how do i put this' it alway comes together. But my spelling mistakes irrit me - yesterdays post i made how was typed half and lives was typed life, and the word born didnt get typed aswell a several other boo boo's}

I do have one question to you guys in this `Physics Site' What are the real properties(Of the hypothetical Gravitron) and what do the imply about C if they are immune to the effect of near infinite mass when mere light gant escape the clutches of the event horizon of a mere black hole let alone a much larger M thing like the the `Initial State' (That i refered to at the very start of this post. 1.01am

Last night's McLoughlin Group on PBS mentioned the story of the WMAP's new data supporting the "inflation" of our young universe. Though they never got around to answering McLoughlin's question of "Are these results giving new support to the creationists?", I could already see the potential exploitation of this data by the (un)Intelligent Design crowd, which seems to be employing the tactic of wearing a thin veneer of actual science in order to gain legitimacy and entrance into the hallowed halls of true scientific scholarship. Instead, even a mildly skeptical observer can see that they are picking and choosing among scientific data, and virtually ignoring the scientific method.
The WMAP data seems to suggest that our universe expanded very rapidly during its first moments, indeed, expanding at non-relativistic speeds. What we need to keep in mind is that time itself is intimately connected to our physical universe, and a billion-trillionth of a second to us may have appeared very differently to any hypothetical observer at the dawn of time. Time itself was sorting out its relation to the physical universe, just as the laws of physics were coming into play to apply to new, developing matter.
Ultimately, time had no meaning until humans (and hopefully, other intelligent species) developed, recognized it, and began to utilize it.
Cthulhu

There is no such thing as a universe. There is just space and energy. You can't go "outside" the universe because it is all encompasing. There can never be an end to space because there is no limit to space. Time is constant because space is constant. Einstein was right when he resolved that the universe couldn't expand. Galaxies are not affected by expansion, but rather by net forces.

Make sure to separate science fiction from science.

First off, the normal laws of physics don't apply to a singularity. Just needed to remind you all.

And also, perhaps... instead of the inflation theory and an open universe and all of that, we have a static universe that is still at a singularity (or something like it) and the initial "big bang" was really an inward explotion and that infinate point of density, the observable matter is just shrinking in comparison to the dark energy/matter/etc. Like... if you take two identical objects (let's just say peas), and place them X inches apart from each other, then somehow shrink them at the same rate... the distance between the peas becomes greater in relation to the sizes of the peas, even though they haven't moved away from each other.

I donno. Just a bit of daytime musing.

How can the Big Bang escape its own gravity?
What is the Big Bang's escape velocity?
It seems to me that the inflationary epoch begins at time zero in order for the universe to eascape its own gravity.

How did the cosmic egg split?

How heavy was the Big Bang? And if it was a "matter" singularity how do the particles that are sitting all on top of each other know how to separate?

Nick, you've already said that on a different thread about the Big Bang. We know it already.

But anyway, to answer your question, I've seen this on the net:

**A possibility of existence of ultra-heavy (quasi)stable particles, mechanisms leading to their large life-time, their production in the early universe, and cosmological manifestations are reviewed.**

Big Bang is heavy.

Nick, you've already said that on a different thread about the Big Bang. We know it already.

But anyway, to answer your question, I've seen this on the net:

**A possibility of existence of ultra-heavy (quasi)stable particles, mechanisms leading to their large life-time, their production in the early universe, and cosmological manifestations are reviewed.**

Big Bang is heavy. Use the dictionary if you want to know the meaning of heavy,

How fast was time at time zero? Because the Big Bang was heavy it had gravity. Because it had great gravity time must have started off ultra slow.

What is it that made the Big Bang heavy in the first place? Did all the matter of the universe come into existence all at once at a singularity? If so its gravity would make it a space-time singularity and a black hole. If this is so how could it expand?