PaulSacramento wrote:neo-x wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:I think we need to define the terms we are using better gentlemen.
Like when a scientist says theory and a layperson says theory ( and means hypothesis).
That said, can anyone explain why the singularity lead to the expansion ( or even Why it expanded instead of contracting) any why it lead to the universe instead, for example, something else?
Quantum fluctuations. You can look it up for more details, there are other models as well.
I think for some the non-scientific one is better as it suits their beliefs better. Or because they haven't looked at the evidence or think that the evidence is arbitrary or inconclusive.
What I don't understand is why poeple won't accept that when you talk about science you can't use layman's terms to define things that are defined in science otherwise and then say there is no evidence or it's just a (layman's) theory?
I don't think you understood my question:
Why did those quantum fluctuations lead to expansion and not contraction? why did they happen in the first place?
Ok, so there are different hypothesis. One, we know for certain that even in vacum, at the quantum level, there are virtual particles, powered by the strong nuclear force. They appear and dissapear in the quantum field randomly. The fluctations of these particles is what triggered the singularity to expand in the first place. The basic idea here is that the forces within the quantum field became repulsive within the singularity, like two magnets with opposing polraities would, and thus the expansion happened.
The other lead hypothesis is that its a bounce-crunch scenario, so the universe expands because of these fluctuations and at a later date contracts to a pre singulairty state once again, and then again expands - thus cranking out cyclic universes. So our universe will eventually contract like we see in stars e.g, falling back into their ownselves and forming black holes - thus when our universe does go back in a crunch to a singularity like state , it will contain all the mass in the universe present today and thus another universe will eventually spring out of it again because of quantum fluctuations and replusive forces that leads to expansion. Please note that it is theorized that such universes will have different physical laws and constraints and will not really behave like its predecessor universe.
These are the hypothesis and they solve a lot of problems we see and evidence exists for a lot of what they say but is not at the moment enough to concretely and definitively say for sure which one is true, plus there are a couple of other models as well. However, the above two hypothesis also have problems present in both scenarios that need to be solved. It is fascinating nonetheless, as we learn more abot the particles and forces as they make up our universe.
IGWS it's an extremely watered down version of the two hypothesis.