You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Are we thinking about the big bang all wrong?
Suppose you have a ginormous vacuum. Nothingness. And in it, you have your unstable baseball-sized supermolecule. At the time of the big bang, it explodes and all the matter escapes in all directions. Spreading throughout that vacuum. With the outer edge limit of the matter in effect being the boundary of the universe. No extra space would need to be created. Just matter would get further apart as the universe ages.
At least, that's how I've always understood it. So there's no need to create space / matter after the big bang.
I'm familiar with this line of thought, but this inevitably leads to the question of 'what is nothing'. I know Lawrence Krauss wrote a book 'A Universe from Nothing' but I've yet to get a hold of it, and I doubt it'll be an easy read...
Good question. And it's probably easier to attempt to define than to visualise. An absence of all matter / energy for the definition. The known universe just without any matter / energy in it when you try to visualise it. Virtually impossible to comprehend (that's theoretical physics for you) but could it be any other way? Kind of like the quote on the human brain: