Could somebody out there, who specializes in physics, biology , chemistry or any mix of the 2, answer my questions?

1. Is there that possibility that the Big Bang did not involve just one point of ‘creation’ in space, but multiple points instead?
  [i put quotations to denote that i am not implying supernatural creation or any of that sort, but am simply referring to the formation of the universe by natural law]

ill come up with more soon… sorry..

Well your question is incoherent because the big bang is theorised to have created all of our universes space and time. There was no space or time prior to the event we call the big bang (actually there was no prior as well) in that particular theory. 

But if you mean could the event have simultaneously created multiple separate universes, there is no reason I know of that it couldn’t. But while multiple universes is a common idea amongst leading edge cosmologists there is also no reason we could know about them at present. Actually we cant even know the big bang except through inference, we just can’t see back that far.

By the way I’m no expert, I’m just a cook.

You need to know a few things beofre answering my question.

space and time are dimensions created by the big bang. I was wondering if a few bursts could occur , and that all bursts contained the same laws of our universe that together, formed a uniform body that are all similar to each other , to the extent that it appears to be of one universe.

You think of it as a balloon, by analogy. I think of it as solutions from different sources poured out together, in which all are similar to each other, and thus seems to be of one unit.

Well if you have a good theory, and it woks as well as or better than the best we have (big bang) at explaining and including all the observed phenomena, then why not? Otherwise it is just metaphorical speculation, and you can say solution, or balloon, or cosmic sneeze and it makes no matter…literally.

Here’s a nice picture.

Basically up to an incredibly small fraction of time after the expansion started we have good supporting evidence and a widely accepted theory that there was 1 singularity.

Though the matter we can observe today was formed in many locations (though not simultaneously) much later in supernova explosions.

That is a good question and while I am no where near being a physist, biologist , chemist or any mix of the 2, I do know a little about the neuro-chemistry of the brain.

IF we can use what happens in brains, be they humans or other animals, we see that not one area of the brain fires off chemicals at a time, but multiple areas. Thus many areas of the brain function at once dumping various chemicals into the brain at a given time after an external stimilus triggers something.

Now IF, and that is a big IF because I’m going on a theory, the universe works anything like an organism’s body (such as human, chimp, cat, dog, mouse, etc), then such an idea of multiple sources involved in the formation of the universe is plausible.

Also, if we observe the earth or even space, there is activity happening everywhere, so it would make sense that a combination of various events at different points and eventually combining would, in theory cause a big bang eventually when they collided to form the unverse.

Now mind you, I’m just pondering your question based on what little science I do know and understand, so only take it as theorectial thought and nothing more.

OY!  I just realized something I said about the brain in this line of thought- don’t ask me what the external stimuli would be for the creation of the universe.  I couldn’t and would not begin to even go there with a theory.  Trust me, I’ve tried as a child and never got anywhere.  I just went in circles.  :(

If we had eggs we could have bacon and eggs if we had bacon…not much of a theory really.

[quote author=“Critical Analyst”]I was wondering if a few bursts could occur , and that all bursts contained the same laws of our universe that together, formed a uniform body that are all similar to each other , to the extent that it appears to be of one universe.

You think of it as a balloon, by analogy. I think of it as solutions from different sources poured out together, in which all are similar to each other, and thus seems to be of one unit.

It’s sort of a confusing suggestion. Do you mean to be asking whether the universe could have started simultaneously at different (spatially distinct?) points which then coalesced?

cgallaga has noted one problem, which is that since the big bang created spacetime, it’s hard to get a real handle on how these distinct points could be spatially distinct and temporally identical before there was space or time. You would have to be talking about some sort of higher-dimensional meta-space or meta-time, and then we’re off in weirdness.

Another problem is that of explaining the synchronicity. What would have caused these distinct bangs to go off at the same meta-time? Or was that just a total coincidence?

But the short answer to your question is that I have no idea whether what you suggest is possible. I’d certainly think it wasn’t very likely. You’d really have to ask a cosmologist.

What hangs on it?

Infinite Regress

What came before the Big Bang?

And that is the $5 trillion question, AD.  If you are the scientist who figures that one out, you will probably be rich AND get the Nobel Prize. 

Re: Infinite Regress

[quote author=“AlbanyDave”]What came before the Big Bang?

Since - according to the bing bang theory - time was created at the event, asking about before is an incoherent question. Its kind of like asking what is north of the north pole?

In this context, does modern cosmology theorize that matter/energy came into being with the Big Bang or that matter/energy existed prior to the Big Bang. I’ve always assumed it must be the latter because (a) the basic laws of physics seem to require it and (b) without matter/energy existing in some state there would be no thing to go “bang.”

That suggests to me that the current state of matter/energy - i.e. the known universe - is the result of the Big Bang and because the space/time of our universe began with it, we cannot see beyond that threshhold.

Obviously this isn’t the place for a physics lesson - I might not understand it anyway - but have I hopelessly garbled what modern cosmology is saying or is that more or less in line with the gist of it?

According to Berkeley

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html

The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.

and http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe.

cgallaga - 19 May 2007 12:33 PM

According to Berkeley

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html

The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.

and http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe.

Thanks. I’ll have to rethink some of what I thought. That keeps life interesting.

George

garicker - 19 May 2007 12:02 PM

without matter/energy existing in some state there would be no thing to go “bang.”

My understanding also is that the total energy of the universe is zero ... See, for example, this paper by the physicist Victor Stenger:

[quote author =“Victor Stenger”]One obvious place to look for a violation of energy conservation is in the energy
balance of the universe as a whole. For many years it seemed that the universe
contained too little matter for negative gravitational potential energy to cancel the
positive kinetic energy in the motions of galaxies. The universe seemed to have positive
energy that would have had to be inserted from the outside at sometime in its history.
However, increasingly precise observations have indicated that invisible components of
matter exist, dark matter and dark energy, that provide an exact balance between
positive kinetic and negative potential energy. Thus the total energy of the universe
appears to be zero and no input of energy from outside, either natural or supernatural,
seems to have been needed to bring the universe into being.

Dang, beat me to it Doug.

Now, we have to understand, that while Cosmology currently best fits observation, so did Newtonian laws for quite a long time. It is entirely likely that the physics that we believe we know so well now, may look like child’s play to future generations. That all our models are errant, and will be overturned in our unending quest to understand.

Welcome (btw) George.

The great thing about science is that it’s always a work in progress. Unfortunately, I didn’t begin paying much attention to it until I was well into middle age, so I’ve been playing catch-up ever since. I suspect my preference for matter/energy always existing springs more from poetic fancy than anything else. I just have a difficult time conceiving of “nothing.” Of course, I also recognize my own ignorance isn’t an argument for anything.

Could one of you point me in the direction of a good book for a layman that summarizes current thinking on cosmology?

And thanks for the welcome.

George