The actual explosion that caused the big bang. Did it explode at the nucleus causing a spherical explosion?

Question

Well was there a nucleus or did it explode off dense anti matter causing the explosion to belch out in one direction only. If there was a nuclus surely the explosion would have forced energy out equaly in all directions in the usual spherical shape. meaning the universe is expanding in all directins proprtional to the force at the centre of the nuleus

Answer 1

From what is known about the big bang there was a type of explosion, not unlike that of a nuclear explosion, but because it wasn't a uranium type of explosion the results were different.

Gamma radiation was the first thing exiting or moving out and that background footprint was predicted before being observed. Then comes random charged particles, electrons and protons which immeidately began to bond and make hydrogen atoms, then helium atoms.

Some people hold the model of a ballon in which that view that as the universe with the ballon blowing up in size and expanding with some type of hard membrane at the outside.

That concept is unclear.

That view would have space 15 billioin light years in size intially contracted to the size of an Atom.

Now, if you're going to totally buy into that, then buying into God is no more difficult.

The entire mass of the universe the size of a molecule or atom.

This indicates there is an ultimate crtical mass point or "smallest thing you can be" which indicates the universe is FINITE in both directions well at least in one.

If the singularity is pulling inward at the speed of light (gravity well) then nothing should be able to ever push outwards.

This would indicate implosion reaching a finite point were things then move back outwards into an explosion.

This would also have to indicate there is lots of space between atoms, far more than we imagine. At least twice what we image, thus the universe would be more like 30 billion light years of which what we see outward equals what we should be able to see inward.

Things compress until there is no space inside or outside. Just the huge mass of the universe existing as something so small we couldn't see it with ane electron microscope.

This leaves open the possiblity that quarks are HUGE in size compared to the microscopic potential of the contracted universe.

As for the shape, it is also possible the universe has a bulge or, if you will, type of ring across one plane.

Answer 2

Talking of the cause would imply the existence of time, and time did not exist before The Big Bang. It has been observed that small amounts of energy can appear from nothing and exist for a short time after which it disappears. The cause is not known, but the Big Bang could be a similar anomaly. It is also possible that the time itself is only an illusion. There is no way to tell that the future actually will happen, and that the memories of the past are real. Thereby The Big Bang could also be just an illusion. The direction of the time is not certain either. We could also live in a Matrix like universe, which is being run within some cosmic computer outside our universe, with The Big Bang being the start(or the end) of the simulation. I believe that the observable universe being finite and quantum physics would fit nicely into this theory. Limited universe would represent the limited memory of the computer and quantum energy states would represent the limited accuracy of numbers in the computer. I also came up with an idea that The Big Bang and apparent expansion of the universe could be just an illusion caused by rotation of dimensions. Effects of time could just be the effects of this rotation. The universe at the time of The Big Bang looks infinitesimally small for the same reason a sheet of paper looks like a line of infinitesimally small area when you look at it from the side. The entropy would seem to increase for the same reason,

Answer 3

This seems to be a really big one. I’ve been told that I contradict myself because I point out that the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion so I obviously don’t know what I’m talking about. The term “Big Bang” was originally given to the theory (originally called “primeval atom”) by Fred Hoyle on a radio program in which he was mocking the theory. However, the misnomer stuck and has been causing confusion ever since.

Let’s first look at what the Big Bang theory really states: “Our universe began in a hot dense state which began, and still is expanding. In this initial event, all the matter in our universe was created with approximately 80% hydrogen and 20% helium.”

That’s my personal paraphrase, but after reviewing a great number of sources, it seems to be the most comprehensive one I can come up with. So let’s analyze it. You’ll notice that nowhere do we find the word “explosion.” Instead we find the term “expansion.”

The frequent picture people seem to have is matter flying outwards from a single point (like an explosion). However, the matter is all actually standing still while space itself expands dragging the matter with it.

The general analogy for this is having a series of paperclips on a rubber band. As the rubber band is stretched, the paperclips appear to move away from one another even though they are in fact holding still with regard to the rubber band. Similarly, galaxies hold still more or less (there are small movements due to gravitational interactions) while they are carried by the expanding universe.

So again, there was no “explosion” but instead, an expansion which is carrying all the rest of the universe away from us.

Answer 4

The 'actual explosion' is an entirely hypothetical explosion.
There are all sorts of serious problems with the idea of the Big Bang.

Proponents of the big bang assume the copernican principle, which is that the universe has no centre and no edge - hence they claim it is not spherical.
This is a big assumption, and not one that everyone agrees with. Not one that many people even realise other people are making probably.
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/creationontheweb?q=copernican+principle&hl=en&lr=

I think the universe does have a centre and an edge, but the Big Bang is a philosophical idea that does not stand up to critical analysis, and does not explain scientifically the observed evidence.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3051/

Answer 5

The Big Bang was not an explosion in any sense you think of explosion. It was the sudden expansion of space and time and it continues to this day. There is no "before" the Big Bang as time started then. The universe is not expanding into anything either, space is the universe and space is expanding. These are difficult concepts to grasp.

Answer 6

The universe as we see it is expanding in all directions equally. Hence the background radiation experiments which show the same levels of background radiation, no matter which way you look.

This means that either we are in the centre of the universe, or at some point the big bang forced matter out at a speed greater than the speed of light and there are bits of the universe that we can't see.

Answer 7

The big bang is the worst name they could have used. It should be the Big Expansion. Think of it as probably a small quantum fluctuation that from an energy standpoint that pushed a boulder off a cliff and released a lot of energy as a field collapsed and formed radiation that coalesced into matter later. There was no stick of dynamite.

Answer 8

The universe is expanding in all directions equally, and always has done.

Answer 9

I could say anything here and you would have no way of knowing whether what I said was true or not ...so yes spherical.