"So how or where was all the matter contained that sprewed forth from that exploding marble.? How is it possible something so small contain so much?"
Good question, and the answer is we really don't know yet. We have some good, but untested, models of the earliest phase of the universe, but nothing definitive yet. The culprit is that pesky thing gravity which is so weak we haven't been able to find its particle in the lab yet. The leading model is the singularity model, but as any good mathemetician will tell you, an infinity usually signals a breakdown in the model you are using.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
"My understanding is that the universe "banged" at a very fast rate (within that fraction of a second) and has since slowed down, like you were saying, to avoid self-destructing/imploding."
Well ... it turns out that there is another player in the game, dark energy. As the universe expanded, it began playing a more and more dominant role until it is now the primary player in the universe. It is causing the universe to actually expand faster.
"I need some SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION, not a philosophical/faith-based explanation. But I thank you Corru for sharing."
The problem is LFL that we have not yet been able to zero in on a good model for Quantum Gravity because our labs are not sophisticated enough (got a free several hundred billion dollars anyone?). Until we crack that nut, the puzzle of the universal superforce (string theory, M theory) is an unsolved riddle as well. There are several experiments on the horizon that could point us in the right direction. But the simple fact is that we don't know what happened in that first tiny fraction of a second.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
"If I remember correctly when going back towards a singularity, theorists are coming up with 10 dimensions--so far. We percieve 4 dimensions, but exist/live in 3.5 dimensions."
The normal way is to say 3 + 1 dimensions. Time, although it is inextricably interwoven with space, does have different apparent properties. The other higher dimensions that are needed to explain the observed parameters and symmetries are somehow folded into the 4 dimensions we see. Quite complex mathematically and definitely only at the hypothesis stage.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
"A density you cannot even fathom. You might want to read about black holes..."
Yes. The black hole is the closest model we have for the primordial singularity, although blackholes exist "within" normal space while the primordial singularity was all of space. Regardless, the density and temperature would be much higher than anything we could create in our labs. So much so that it is thought that all of the forces of nature were combined into one superforce, no particles existed yet, just a vat of tremendous energy. Weird, eh?
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
"The Big Bang Theory doesn't seek to prove or disprove God. It seeks to explain what has been observed."
CHECK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"There was no before... for 'before' didn't exist. For that matter, neither did 'during' or 'after.' Time was created with the Big Bang. It is part of the fabric of the universe, just like anything else."
This sort of thinking, that time itself was created in the Big Bang, has been catching on in many cosmological models. Read Hawking's "Universe in a Nutshell" for example.
"Well. Let's hope Chrome can put some framework to it."
I hope I have, but if not, please let me know and I'll be happy to throw some more planks up.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
"All I'm saying is what happened to the laws of physics, gravity, etc. We explain much of the universe with these principles/theories and yet we cannot explain "the marble" because now it is beyond our comprehension as you state? We used to think that way about many things but eventually science advances to EXPLAIN. Right?. I'm just looking for a scientific explanation. It may not be "correct" but I'd like to hear what it is. Dr. Chrome????"
You are both right (I love relativity LOL). We do use/create theories to explain observations and push forward the boundaries of our understanding. The problem is that we are currently way ahead in "theory." There are many hypotheses out there that could explain that first bit of time. But we do not have the equipment yet to discern which hypothesis is the more correct one. We'll just have to wait until the right projects get funded.
OTOH, what BF is saying could be true. Our universe may just be a bubble in a huge "multi-verse" (to be trite) in which the parameters are possibly infinitely more vast and thus our universe in all its glory could be perceived as easily as microbes on a petri dish. However, we are living on the Petri dish and can't see the forest for the trees.
Let me give you an example. Consider a two dimensional person who lives on a piece of paper. Imagine an object inside a closed square on that piece of paper. The 2-d person can never reach the object or even see it, only the 4 walls of the box. It would be the equivalent of a safe with no door in our reality. However, you as a 3-d person could just reach down and grab the object inside the square with no difficulty. You could even then put the object back down on the paper and it would magically appear in the 2-d person's world. You could even slam it down on the 2-d person's head and he wouldn't even see it coming (sinners in the hands of a angry god, eh?). That is what BF means about things outside our perception. Make sense?
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
hahaha...Okay Apollo... good choice. I thought about naming myself Zeus so I'd refer to you as "Hijo Mio" and you'd just call me 'Pappi'...but thought better of it. As any good Geminid, I have split personality, so my evil side wants me to call myself Hades, but then again, I always considered myself more the Devil's Advocate, rather than the Devil himself. And then what guy wouldn't want to be dubbed 'eros' and be a real mack-daddy.
See what conundrum your test score has turned this into? Polytheism makes this all so tough. I therefore dub myself Prometheus--the rebel god. Yeh...fitting.
***
I've always been fascinated with cosmology. I'm glad to find someone who has actually read Flatland.
I personally tire of trying to rebut the notion that 'science = the study of everything that is strictly observable and testable against naturalistic mechanisms'. Understanding Flatland speaks to this.
Mathematics can and does operate in n-dimensions. But humans exist only in 3+1 dimensions. The idea forwarded by Flatland is that if an N+1 (not to be confused with 3+1 space/temporal) dimensional being were to appear to an N-dimensional being, the N+1 being would exhibit characteristics akin to the 'supernatural', yet no physical laws were broken, only the N being's limited perception.
Who is to say that 4 dimensional, 5 dimensional, etc ad infinitum beings do not exist? We can't observe those dimensions, we can only predict them (mathematically). Imagine a being who exists in a second temporal dimension, one where the arrow of time moves backward relative to ours? I dunno, I'm not a theoretical physicist, so that may be bass-ackward and even mathematically impossible...but if we cannot observe that dimension, we cannot prove its non-existence. Well, then a being with those dimensional characteristics could likely place himself anywhere along our timeline...
How about 4 spatial dimensions? the being would be invisible to us in the 4th dimension, but could likely appear it so chose in the 3 spatials we exist in. Sounds like a poltergeist.
But if this was the case, then it would not be supernatural at all, and we would have to seriously reconsider our definition of science. After all, no physical laws are being broken, but the scope of those laws are beyond our measure and observability.
This would surely complicate the religious, as it would put an explanation on the miraculous. It would also complicate the secular, as it would challenge mainstream notions that science is limited to that which we (as humans) can observe directly.
Did the big bang come out of nothing? Maybe. Probably. Possibly. Maybe not. We can't know. It's just as possible that some 25 dimensional universe evolved a 10 dimensional being that looked a lot like a 6 year old brat with a tinker toy set who proceded to build for himself a 3+1 dimensional universe of his own, much like 6 y/os today play with sea monkeys....just add water.
