Misconception of the Big Bang

[Theokyrios_the_Ultimate]

I've realized that this page treats a Big Bang as a "4-dimensional spatiotemporal expansion" and "that creates cosmoses from scratch". This is a complete misunderstanding of what a Big Bang is.

First of all, the terms 'expanding'/'growing'/'stretching'/etc. are NOT accurate terms to describe cosmological inflation. The use of these terms are oversimplifications of how these phenomena actually work, like saying that spacetime "bends" or that energy "rolls". Physicians prefer to use analogies instead of having to explain it mathematically, forwhy it's just easier.

Now, the inflation is not some "aftershock" of the Big Bang or a result of it, but the result of the inflaton field (a scalar-field property of vacuum energy).

To the second part, is a typical misconception. Nay, the megacosm did not started with a Big Bang. The Big-Bang model is a theoretical explanation of the earliest, heated, dense stages of the OBSERVABLE universe, with a special attention to the famous explosion AFTER the initial singularity that already was the observable universe (of uncertain origin, but the actual genesis of the Universe is most likely attributed to a previous macrocosm).

Then, what is a Big Bang, in general? Just an explosion originated from an extremely heated, dense, pointlike source, that can vary in energy. For making one, one doesn't need cosmic proportions of mass-energy. As incredible as it may sound, mankind has made small Big Bangs, thanks to particle colliders such as the LHC. So, it needs to be fixed.

 

[ProspectX]

So this model; implies the "big bang" to be just another of many spontaneous events, of this locality? Not referring to the creation of the total framework that is.

On the other hand, this expansion is said alternatively said to be a quintessence , some fundamental force of nature, opposed to the Cosmological Constant. Which is static.

As of now, the arrow of time currently would be the most accurate depiction for such models, where "cause to effect" is occasioned by the mechanism, of thermodynamics.

 

[Aeyu]

Most big bang feats usually are treated as 3-A iirc, unless they are also shown to demonstrate the beginning of the space-time continuum or the beginning of creation in general.

 

[Theokyrios_the_Ultimate]

@ProspectX, correct.

You got it wrong. Quintessence is not an alternative for the inflaton field. Rather, it is a possible explanation for the acceleratio of cosmological inflation, not its cause.

No. Entropy has little to do with the Big Bang. It was caused by quantum fluctuations within the initial singularity, for example, a valid interpretation would be the quantum bounce that results in a white hole, releasing the physical information that was attached to its bidimensional surface.

@Aeyu, which is a relief, as it means little editing.

 

[Niarobi_(Formerly_Hadou)]

There probably won't need to be any editing done. Big Bang feats are treated as 3-A if they're done from what looks like a physical explosion, and they are Low 2-C if they are described as being a space-time expansion or anything similar.

 

[ProspectX]

If a supposed Big Bang is inaccurately presented as a purely physical explosion.

Seems like we need to change this part, a "Big Bang" would be a "explosive" release of energy, from one specific source of location within the observable universe.

 

[Antvasima]

You should preferably ask DontTalk to comment here.