Isn't it wrong to assume that there has been only one big bang?

Question

To me the idea for a single...singularity sounds as likely as saying that there is only one planet in this world (our Earth), like people have thought 2000 years ago or more. Also...I know big bang isn't considered the only possible naked singularity...but I mean a similar event that would create matter or something like matter (exotic matter). I know we don't have empirical evidence for any type of events like these - but this doesn't matter...you can even approach the event mathematically and try to estimate the probability for a similar event like the big bang not to happen (like...using the CDF of a continous distribution and using some mean/variance or what it asks for...) - you can even think of it easily like what will be the probability for just one big bang to happen within infinite amount of time - given that virtual particles surely exist in time and would experience different interactions. Again...i am no expert...just guessng...it might turn out for whatever reason that virtual particles do not exist in time or what they can create only one big bang...etc. 10x!

Answer 1

Do you mean more than one big bang creating more than one universe, separate from our own? We don't know if that happened, and we don't claim it didn't. We can't test for it. Or do you mean more than one big bang in our own universe? That we CAN test for - the big bang left very particular signatures behind. The easiest test would be to look for bi-modality in the cosmic microwave background - evidence of two separate populations of cooling photons. We don't see that. So no, there weren't two big bangs in our own universe.

Answer 2

To assume: To suppose as a fact.



When you build a theory, you suppose certain things as "facts" : as in, let's suppose that the murderer used a gun, what should we be able to find as evidence?



"Isn't it wrong to assume that..."



ALL theories, whether in science, crime solving, religion or whatever else, begin with the statement: let's suppose that things happened this way, what should come next.



Therefore it cannot be wrong to assume that there was only one event that led to the Big Bang -- the "Big Bang" is the expansion of space, not an initial event (like an explosion) that led to the expansion.



It also is not wrong to assume that there were two, or five or 397. However, you would find it very difficult to establish what evidence you would be able to find that leads you to convince others of that.



In science, a theory is either useful, less useful or not useful at all (in the last case, it is usually dropped).



As far as our Observable Universe is concerned (including all its particles, virtual or not), everything can be explained in a useful way, using only one expansion. In fact, if the Observable Universe (the only one we can analyze, by the way) were the result of more than one "Big Bang" process, then we would observe discontinuities in the physical laws governing it (for example, different sets of elementary particle in different parts), and we do not observe that.



The Observable Universe behaves AS IF the whole thing followed one set of rules. So, for now, "assuming" that there is only one Big Bang is still a useful approach.

Answer 3

Yes and no. It is completely possible for our big bang to be one of many such events in some higher plane of existance however, there is no way to prove this (so far) and since we cant even describe what was going on at the time of the big bang it would be meanignless to try and speculate about the probability of such an event. Furthermore a general equation for probability of an event is the probability of an event multiplied by the number chances for that event to occour. The number of chances would like be even harder to calculate.



To me it is correct to assume that our universe is the only one in existance becuase even if other exist we wont be able to ever visit to them. It is also likely that they dont have the 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time, without any of these we wold not be able to relate to them at all.

Answer 4

I've always figured that gravity would sort things out and draw the universe back into a singularity, which would result in another Big Bang. The fact that the universe's expansion appears to be accelerating is what confuses me. If matter is too dispersed to be affected by gravity, then there is nothing to stop it from travelling in its outward direction, which would mean that the universe will continue to expand indefinitely. If there is to be another Big Bang, it would have to originate on it's own, perhaps when the center of our universe is completely void of matter. Maybe the Big Bang happens when gravity "pulls" the universe into existence... instead of a Big Bang, it is more of a Big Pull. ?

Answer 5

It is wrong to assume there was a big bang at all, except in theory, and the latest work is under the general term "inflation theory" now, and not a "bang" as in the original old theory which was disproven due to lack of evidence. The new big bang theory is not proven either, and there is no mountain of evidence, except through interpretation of some data such as red shifting and microwaves, and not by experimental data or proof, only by chosen and accepted interpretation.

So, though it is "the prevailing theory", the big bang theory should not be taken as fact.

Some folks here claim mountains of evidence yet present none in reality. I have heard this same type of arogant claim related to God. The fact of the matter is that God and The Big Bang Theory are belief systems to many and reality in fact to none. The Big Bang franchise allows for shifts and changes, tweaks and revisions, and entirely new ideas to be called "the big bang", so it is no wonder that some feel it is a fact. It is a perpetual motion skewed pseudo-theory by this point and nobody knows what it will be next year or next week, or wait, maybe it's been revised while I wrote this? I'll have to check. Like the definition of "god", the big bang is whatever model of the week is popular today..."Wimps", "Machos", Dark Matter? It's all theory and it is all in flux.

On red shifts and god: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZxzvdQ85zU&feature=related

------------------------------

p.s. on assumption: reading and answering questions in this section, especially related to "the big bang theory", it seems that some people have a deep desire or conern about finding an assumption they can think of as a real solid fact about the Universe. They want an answer they can chisel in stone and live with as concrete law. In this way they no longer need think about the great mysteries and wonder of it all, and they can "know" the big answer. This may be why some folks want to see the big bang theory as "nearly proven" or backed by mountains of proof, etc., when in fact it is just an idea in science and not a fact in reality, and it will be part of history like The Flat Earth eventually. Is it wrong to assume there was a big bang? To assume it as fact is to make it religious myth as a belief system or cosmogony. Is it wrong to ponder various possible scenarios related to life, the universe, and everything? No. That is a wonderful passtime and delightful enterprise of being a thoughtful and creative human being. To take an idea and believe it, that is something else.

Answer 6

Of course there's no way to test a multi-universe hypothesis that I know of. Nonetheless, if you look at the patterns in how our Universe unfolded, it suggest to me that multi-universes might have happened. Consider the minuscule fluctuations in the CMBR and how those perturbations can be linked to specific clusters of galaxy formation, one has to wonder if whole Universes might follow some kind of similar pattern. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, CMBR, possesses a wealth of information about our Universe, and perhaps hences at the nature of other Universes as well.



In short, yes, I do believe that there has to be other Universes.

Answer 7

The Big Bang is the expansion of the universe which we have solid evidence for, which dates back to about 13.7 billion years ago. There are mountains of evidence for this, yet there is zero evidence for multiple Big Bangs.



Since the Big Bang Theory explains all of the avaliable observational evidence with a single expansion, a more complex model is neither useful nor necessary at this point in time.

Answer 8

It's not wrong; it's closed minded to assume that there was only one Big Bang. Closed mindedness, ignorance with arrogance, scientific illiteracy, AND geography illiteracy are epidemic scale problems in the U.S.A. Head Start is not working.

Answer 9

I believe there has been more than one. I always have.