# Cosmology question. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 3, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100 "2010-05-03T01:42:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/21 "2010-05-03T16:19:48Z")
Yeah, but what happened before the Big Bang? šŸ˜ƒ ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/22 "2010-05-03T16:21:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yeah, but what happened before the Big Bang? šŸ˜ƒ Supermassive blackhole collision in another universe! šŸ˜› ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/23 "2010-05-03T16:39:25Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Sure. I understand the concept. However, Iā€™ve seen theoretical models showing the expansion by running time backwards, so, at least in theory, you SHOULD be able to pinpoint approximately where the original expansion started from. Or, at least thatā€™s the question Iā€™m asking in this thread. > > -XT The word ā€œwhereā€, just like the word ā€œwhenā€ is meaningless in the context. Everything - all of space - was in that singularity; the singularity wasnā€™t located somewhere in space - rather all of space was located inside it. So it occurred everywhere, by definition. _Every_ part of the universe was in that infinitessimally small point. Then that point expanded. Regarding the expansion of space now - everything isnā€™t moving away from a single point. Everything is moving away from _everything else_. Wherever you stand in the universe, everything is moving away from you. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/24 "2010-05-03T17:00:15Z")
> [@Candyman74](#): > > The word ā€œwhereā€, just like the word ā€œwhenā€ is meaningless in the context. Everything - all of space - was in that singularity; the singularity wasnā€™t located somewhere in space - rather all of space was located inside it. Bit of a nitpick, but does it make sense to talk about space being ā€œinsideā€ the singularity? If there is an ā€œinsideā€, then there is an ā€œoutsideā€. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/25 "2010-05-03T17:07:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Bit of a nitpick, but does it make sense to talk about space being ā€œinsideā€ the singularity? If there is an ā€œinsideā€, then there is an ā€œoutsideā€. Yeah. But I donā€™t think there are words which actually work. I imagine physics theorists could point us towards equations which describe it, but I donā€™t myself know of the right words. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/26 "2010-05-03T17:10:39Z")
> [@Candyman74](#): > > Yeah. But I donā€™t think there are words which actually work. I imagine physics theorists could point us towards equations which describe it, but I donā€™t myself know of the right words. I think itā€™s best to just say: the singularity is space-time. The best analogy Iā€™ve seen, as already mentioned, is the 2D analogue of the surface of the balloon. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/27 "2010-05-03T23:32:00Z")
Well, now that Iā€™m a bit more soberā€¦ [QUOTE=Candyman74] The word ā€œwhereā€, just like the word ā€œwhenā€ is meaningless in the context. Everything - all of space - was in that singularity; the singularity wasnā€™t located somewhere in space - rather all of space was located inside it. [/QUOTE] Actually, a singularity simply is a term that means ā€˜no one knowsā€™. There are various theories about what the universe may have looked like before the big bang, but the problem is that (at least from my limited understanding) the physics and equations all break down before the big bang started, so there is nothing to actually describe what was there ā€˜beforeā€™. While my OP was confused, I actually DO understand that there was no space or anything else for the universe to expand intoā€¦that in fact it was space/time itself that did the expanding and continues to do so. Iā€™m not sure what I was getting at exactly with my own question (which should tell you a bit about my state last night), so Iā€™ll just say that it was a silly question in retrospect and that I do understand the explanations, at least to the extent Iā€™m capable of doing so without understanding the math involved. > [@](#): > > Regarding the expansion of space now - everything isnā€™t moving away from a single point. Everything is moving away from everything else. Wherever you stand in the universe, everything is moving away from you. Well, except the parts that arenā€™t. I understand that our own galaxy is destined to smash into another in a mere couple of billion years (Andromeda?). Anyway, I want to thank everyone for the explanations and the patience with my silly question. Itā€™s appreciated. Next time I do something this incredibly silly Iā€™d appreciate it if someone would ask ā€˜XT? Are you drinking again??ā€™ā€¦ -XT ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/28 "2010-05-03T23:48:46Z")
So, didja beat up a Cosmos or two this time? šŸ˜ƒ ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/29 "2010-05-03T23:57:27Z")
Sadly, no. Iā€™m still recovering from my last beating. But thanks for asking. šŸ˜› -XT ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/30 "2010-05-04T00:16:50Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, except the parts that arenā€™t. I understand that our own galaxy is destined to smash into another in a mere couple of billion years (Andromeda?). Only on a very local scale (and that is, beleive it or not, a very lcoal scale compared to the universe) If I walk towards you, Iā€™m obviously not moving away from you. But on a large (universal) scale, everythingā€™s moving away from everything. But some thinkgs may be moving closer to each other on a local scale. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/31 "2010-05-04T17:08:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, except the parts that arenā€™t. I understand that our own galaxy is destined to smash into another in a mere couple of billion years (Andromeda?). Nitpick: We know that weā€™re getting closer to each other, but that doesnā€™t necessarily imply that weā€™re going to collide, and in fact we probably wonā€™t. Itā€™s more likely that weā€™ll just pass each other and then start moving further away again, starting another orbit. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/32 "2010-05-04T17:31:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Bit of a nitpick, but does it make sense to talk about space being ā€œinsideā€ the singularity? If there is an ā€œinsideā€, then there is an ā€œoutsideā€. I think it does make some sense to talk about ā€œinsideā€ vs ā€œoutsideā€ though those might not be the best terms to use. As I understand it, even the emptiest space still has energy associated with it. So, the mere fact that there is a _there_ takes some degree of structure/energy/whatever to make it exist. Thus, you can distinguish between space (that which is ā€œinsideā€) and not-space (that which is ā€œoutsideā€). But, of course, you canā€™t see, detect, measure, etc. the not-space because it is not. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/33 "2010-05-04T22:12:41Z")
**Colibri** said: > [@](#): > > To say in another way what others have been saying, space itself was created by the Big Bang. The Big Bang didnā€™t happen _in_ space, so itā€™s meaningless to ask where in space it occurred. This is the part I have trouble with. I accept that there is no location _in space_ that the Big Bang occurred, that the universe itself as a whole is the Big Bang. But what bugs me is the external question. Cosmologists argue there is no space outside the universe, so the universe is not expanding into anything. But then they say that at the moment of the Big Bang, the universe popped into existence as a tiny, microscopic spot of energy. So where was that spot? If the universe is expanding, it must be expanding into something. That something isnā€™t the universe, but what is it? Similarly, cosmologists will simultaneously state that the Big Bang was the begining of time, so it makes no sense to talk about ā€œbefore the Big Bangā€, and yet then they will speculate that our universe was born out of a cyclical pattern of bangs and crunches, or that there are other ā€œuniversesā€ out there. But if there is a cyclical pattern or other alternates, then there is an out there and a before. I can accept an answer ā€œwe donā€™t knowā€ and ā€œit is useless to speculateā€, but I have difficulty accepting the answer ā€œthere is no _there_ thereā€ and ā€œthere is no _before_ā€. Cosmologists arenā€™t even self-consistent, no wonder the public thinks theyā€™re full of it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/34 "2010-05-04T22:58:41Z")
Different cosmological theories are not consistent with each other, but each theory (or at least, so far as we know, each theory thatā€™s taken at all seriously) is consistent within itself. The fact that there are still competing theories is a sign that we donā€™t know everything yet, but I donā€™t think youā€™ll find a cosmologist who claims that we do. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/35 "2010-05-04T23:03:04Z")
Irishman, the idea that the Big Bang is cyclical has been pretty well disproven at this point. Everything we know says that it is not cyclical. (Which is not to say that they wonā€™t discover something new in 10 years and change their minds). The fact that we can think about the universe expanding into something surrounding it really doesnā€™t make it true. You just have to come to a point of understanding that a chunk of deep outer space is still a thing. It may be devoid of planets, dust, atoms and even photons, but it is brimming with virtual particles that pop in and out of existence because technically they never did exist. Furthermore, it has dimensions - height, width, depth and time. If you want to think of something outside, I think you have to realize that it isnā€™t even empty space. Not only is nothing in it, there are no virtual particles. It has no height, width or depth and no time. There are no laws of physics that govern it. Imagine that you went to an art gallery and saw a blank sheet of paper hanging on a blank wall. You could say ā€œThereā€™s nothing there,ā€ when in fact there is a piece of paper. Imagine the artist comes up to you and says ā€œYou canā€™t see it, but the real art was drawn outside the paper.ā€ Youā€™d call him insane, right? Thereā€™s no way to draw anything outside the page because thereā€™s not even something there to draw on. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/36 "2010-05-04T23:32:17Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **Colibri** said: > This is the part I have trouble with. I accept that there is no location _in space_ that the Big Bang occurred, that the universe itself as a whole is the Big Bang. But what bugs me is the external question. > > Cosmologists argue there is no space outside the universe, so the universe is not expanding into anything. But then they say that at the moment of the Big Bang, the universe popped into existence as a tiny, microscopic spot of energy. So where was that spot? > > If the universe is expanding, it must be expanding into something. That something isnā€™t the universe, but what is it? > > Similarly, cosmologists will simultaneously state that the Big Bang was the begining of time, so it makes no sense to talk about ā€œbefore the Big Bangā€, and yet then they will speculate that our universe was born out of a cyclical pattern of bangs and crunches, or that there are other ā€œuniversesā€ out there. But if there is a cyclical pattern or other alternates, then there is an out there and a before. Partly these are language issues. We canā€™t imagine, and therefore havenā€™t developed the language to describe what we mean - so we use words like ā€œinto somethingā€ and ā€œoutsideā€ and so forth. But theyā€™re just words. The only way it can be described is via lots of horrible complicated equations. The best we can do to describe the meaning of those equations is create crude analogies, etc. - but thatā€™s all they are: analogies described with limited language. So itā€™s no wonder that fokls have difficulty with the concepts, because we simply canā€™t imagine or verbalize it. But we _can_ write equations which describe our theories. And then some very clever people attempt to sumamrise those equations into laymanā€™s terms using analogies and words like ā€œexpand intoā€ and ā€œinsideā€ and ā€œbeforeā€ and so forth, and of course those anaologies fail to accurately describe the equations. But they come close enough that we can attempt to discuss the vague concepts in very general terms - and end up with threads like this. šŸ™‚ ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/37 "2010-05-05T19:07:20Z")
**Chronos** said: > [@](#): > > Different cosmological theories are not consistent with each other, but each theory (or at least, so far as we know, each theory thatā€™s taken at all seriously) is consistent within itself. Iā€™m not talking about the theories themselves, Iā€™m talking about the meta topic, the way cosmologists talk about the topic to people. When people ask ā€œWhat is the universe expanding intoā€, the cosmologists explain ā€œNothing. The universe is everything.ā€ But then when trying to discuss the ultimate beginning and ending, those same cosmologists will bring up either cyclic universal bangs and crunches, or that there are other ā€œuniversesā€ with different natural laws, or whatever. _That_ is inconsistent to me. **dracoi** said: > [@](#): > > Irishman, the idea that the Big Bang is cyclical has been pretty well disproven at this point. Everything we know says that it is not cyclical. Tell that to the physicist I heard repeating it just the other day (Discovery Channel program about the Big Bang called, IIRC, ā€œThe Universeā€). I know, the universe appears to be expanding, and the rate of expansion increasing. I was puzzled, too, but that guy still said it like it was a current possibility. **Candyman74** said: > [@](#): > > Partly these are language issues. We canā€™t imagine, and therefore havenā€™t developed the language to describe what we mean - so we use words like ā€œinto somethingā€ and ā€œoutsideā€ and so forth. But theyā€™re just words. > > The only way it can be described is via lots of horrible complicated equations. The best we can do to describe the meaning of those equations is create crude analogies, etc. - but thatā€™s all they are: analogies described with limited language. So itā€™s no wonder that fokls have difficulty with the concepts, because we simply canā€™t imagine or verbalize it. Fair enough. The words we use have inherent assumptions based upon the context in which we live and experience the world, so the concepts we are trying to discuss are outside that framework, and thus the words donā€™t exist. Still makes it durned confusing. ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/38 "2010-05-05T19:38:10Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **Chronos** said: > > > [@](#): > > > > Different cosmological theories are not consistent with each other, but each theory (or at least, so far as we know, each theory thatā€™s taken at all seriously) is consistent within itself. > > Iā€™m not talking about the theories themselves, Iā€™m talking about the meta topic, the way cosmologists talk about the topic to people. When people ask ā€œWhat is the universe expanding intoā€, the cosmologists explain ā€œNothing. The universe is everything.ā€ But then when trying to discuss the ultimate beginning and ending, those same cosmologists will bring up either cyclic universal bangs and crunches, or that there are other ā€œuniversesā€ with different natural laws, or whatever. _That_ is inconsistent to me. Its inconsistent because we donā€™t have the **language** to talk about it in a self-consistent way. Current cosmological theory [at the bleeding edge which probably hasnā€™t made it into pop culture/science yet, (and yes, The Discovery Channel is pop science)], suggests that weā€™re not in a cyclic universe but a universe thatā€™s expanding at an accelerating rate. However, we have precisely **no way** of knowing about other universes or indeed what, if anything is ā€œoutsideā€, our own ā€“ we just do not have the means to know. We can describe these cosmologies with mathematics in a consistent way, but heck, I know that even I probably wouldnā€™t understand said equations without getting a serious headache (and I deal with observational cosmology as the day job). Putting it into language that Joe Average understands is seriously difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/39 "2010-05-05T19:44:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Iā€™m not talking about the theories themselves, Iā€™m talking about the meta topic, the way cosmologists talk about the topic to people. When people ask ā€œWhat is the universe expanding intoā€, the cosmologists explain ā€œNothing. The universe is everything.ā€ But then when trying to discuss the ultimate beginning and ending, those same cosmologists will bring up either cyclic universal bangs and crunches, or that there are other ā€œuniversesā€ with different natural laws, or whatever. That is inconsistent to me. Not the same cosmologists. And there are some current braneworld models which do include cyclical bangs, but I (and I suspect, most cosmologists) would maintain that they needlessly multiply entities. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100/40 "2010-05-05T19:58:02Z")
When we were kids, my sister and I decided somehow that the space outside the universe is filled with cheese sandwiches, or at least that the universe is surrounded by cheese sandwiches. I have no idea where we came up with that from. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmology-question/538100.md?page=3)