Big Bang Origin?

I think this does not align much with the underpinings to the big bang that are derived using general relativity. Those indicate that the bang did not get it's energy from such a source as you suggest but from a "field" in the fabric of spacetime itself.I was surprised to find that there is a good deal of mathematical developement from general relativity which predicts the nature of the big bang. I'm just not really qualified to comment on it much other than to say that I think your suggestion doesn't fit.

The observation of the expansion is an experimental confirmation of consequences of GR. As I understand (I can't do the math to confirm it myself) the expansion is a predicted property of spacetime. I only found this out recently and it is very impressive as GR has been so well confirmed in many other tests.The observed expansion and then the cosmic background radiation are experimental results that are expected from GR.

This is really over my head. I just read popularized versions of this and my degree is so old I forgot everything and it is only a BSc but....It seems the universe HAD to "bang" because that is the nature of space time as described by general relativity. In addition, something called the Higg's field can supply an enormous pressure to cause something that is like "negative gravity" and force a tremendously fast expansion of space time (inflation).The "cooling" of the Higgs field is where a LOT of energy can come from. There was no "matter", in the sense we usually use, at first. Just energy but as it "cools" then matter can form. Remember matter and energy are all the same thing.I don't understand it well enough to explain and I'm not sure how simple it can be made. I suggest if you really want the answers that Brian Greene's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" is a good place to try. It pulls no punches but use no math. (The lack of math means you won't really "get it" but at least you are introduced to the ideas and the math would be waaaay to hairy for us to grapple with anyway.)Remember, we measure the expansion of space in a number of ways, there is no sensible doubt that it happens.We have, through general relativity (GR), good theoretical reasons to expect there to have been a big bang. GR has been tested, the predictions made about the nature of the universe that should have resulted have been tested and have proven out.The complete answer is not yet in place but you are not the only one asking questions. There are cosmolgists and physicists around the world attempting to answer the big question.The big bang is, it seems, now "old hat". That isn't an issue anymore. That is the simple stuff .As for time, the analogy that has been used here several times is that if you keep going north (or back in time) eventually you get to a place where there is no more "north" left (or any time before left). It is entirely possible to describe spacetime as haveing a point with no "before" just as there is a place on the earth with no "north". How accurate a description of the universe that is I can't judge but it looks pretty good so far.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-04-2006 03:02 AM