<blockquote>
  <p>In the big bang model of the Universe, every observable thing is thought to have expanded very abruptly from a point of infinite density and zero volume.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Thats not quite true. Have a look at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> where you can read this: </p>

<p><em>"Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[18] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity and thus, all the laws of physics. How closely this can be extrapolated toward the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[19] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[20][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our universe."</em> </p>

<p>You can't necessarily extrapolate back all the way to a point singularity.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>However, the problem with this assertion is that for something to expand it first needs a locality in which to do such, which brings us to my question.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There's no problem with <em>space</em> expanding. Don't think of space as nothing, Einstein didn't, and nor do modern physicists such as Nobel prizewinner <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum" rel="nofollow">Robert B Laughlin</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>How can scientists believe that "everything" was condensed and then suddenly expanded, since such is automatically an oxymoron?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because there's good scientific <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&amp;source=hp&amp;biw=&amp;bih=&amp;q=evidence+expanding+universe&amp;gbv=2&amp;oq=evidence+expanding+universe&amp;gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0j0i22i30l9.1186.6803.0.6927.27.26.0.1.1.0.140.2182.24j2.26.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.27.2197.Qzx_JQ-rxXY" rel="nofollow">evidence that the universe is expanding</a>. And when you "wind back the clock" you find that all the galaxies were in the same place 13.8 billion years ago.  </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Expansion is a physical property of the universe and yet if "everything" had no where to expand, how could it have expanded? There was "nothing," was there not?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. Space expanded, and space isn't nothing. As to what caused the big bang to occur, I don't know. Nor do I know what the universe was like 13.8 billion years ago. But I know of no infinities in nature, and I would challenge the alleged point singularity at the centre of a black hole and refer instead to the <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=frozen+star+black+hole&amp;hl=en-GB&amp;biw=&amp;bih=&amp;gbv=2&amp;oq=frozen+star+black+hole&amp;gs_l=heirloom-serp.3..0.236701.245814.0.246219.22.13.0.9.9.0.140.953.12j1.13.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..0.22.984.Q0uo6M303wE" rel="nofollow">frozen star interpretation</a>. In similar vein I would challenge the alleged point-singularity 13.8 billion years ago. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Even if we drop the big bang model and talk about "everything's" being in a singularity point, the question still stands. Where was the singularity point?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think you shouldn't drop the big bang model, but instead you should drop the singularity. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Asked differently, into what is everything expanding?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Nothing. I know this is hard to imagine, but try to. Space is expanding, and there is no space beyond it. So there <em>is</em> no beyond it. As to whether this means you end up coming back round full circle or the universe is some <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/24/universe.wide/" rel="nofollow">"hall of mirrors"</a> or something else, I don't know.   </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(which is a rhetorical question I ask to implicate space-time as necessarily existing irrespective of any theoretical expansion and likely so vastly that one might as well assume that space-time is infinitely large).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No, one might not. Because the universe doesn't expand for nothing. It expands because space has a kind of innate "pressure", as per the energy-pressure diagonal in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor" rel="nofollow">stress-energy-momentum tensor</a>. And if the universe was infinite, the pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. An infinite universe could not expand. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When thinking about the big-bang model, I can't help but conclude that a mere analogy was originally used </p>
</blockquote>

<p>For an analogy, get a <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stress+ball&amp;hl=en-GB&amp;gbv=2&amp;prmd=ivnsp&amp;tbm=isch&amp;tbo=u&amp;source=univ&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiiuuuW7ZfKAhUG1xQKHZRNCEwQsAQIMw" rel="nofollow">stress ball</a> and squeeze it down in your fist. Then let go. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The issue though is still extension. As far as I understood it, the big bang model states that space itself was also condensed along with everything else in the observable universe to a point of singularity.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>See what I said above. Big bang cosmology doesn't actually say everything was condensed to point singularity.  </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>All the matter had to expand somewhere</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There wasn't any matter initially. Remember the wave nature of matter, and pair production. We can quite literally make matter out of electromagnetic waves. These wave propagate through space, and are effectively wave sin space. So we make matter out of waves in space. So start with space, and do somehting to it such that it rings like a bell and is full of waves and starts expanding. As to what, I don't know.   </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>How does the theory allege where everything is yet at the same time assert that prior to the singularity point, there was literally nothing?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't. It goes back as far as a very dense universe. The stuff you hear about a point singularity and creation ex-nihilo is popscience, not big bang cosmology. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-08T02:55:26.887Z
Actually it has been determined that the Universe is indeed infinite and it is also expanding as well .
Peter U
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-08T14:23:53.900Z
@Peter U : it hasn't been determined that the universe is infinite. That's a popscience non-sequitur that started being bandied around in circa 2013 when [WMAP](http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html) measurements indicated the universe was flat.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-08T15:12:33.170Z
@JohnDuffield, there are a few things you seemed to read around or not follow carefully in my question. I never said that space is nothing. I distinctly separated the two and asked where space is. The answer is of course that we don't know. As well, unfortunately, the big bang theory doesn't work in that the evidence doesn't support a gigantic explosion. It doesn't follow that the universe "is expanding" if all that is expanding is the visible light itself. As well, it doesnt' follow that it is expanding "no where." Tautology, not my problem. Saying "try" is your shortcoming.
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-08T15:16:12.220Z
It does no good to say that the balloon that is our "universe" contains space within it and that prior to its "expansion," there was nothing. Such is a positive claim that cannot be supported by evidence. Just say, "if the big bang occurred, it is not known how it could have occurred," since such would negate all the known laws of physics in several respects. One, even if everything were squeezed into a tiny dot, then there would still be everything and not nothing. Just in a tiny dot. Two, where that dot would be would necessarily be somewhere, and a place is a thing, not a nothing. Etc.
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-08T15:20:15.523Z
As well, that light travels doesn't mean that the universe is traveling. That it takes light a certain time before reaching us says nothing about whether space moves. If light (thing) moves into the unseen/unknown of that which is later the known universe, then the place in which it travels was there prior to the light's traveling there, regardless of our knowledge of that place. Hence, there is a causal relation to said place, just an inductive one.
Based on the fact that "nothing exceeds the speed of light" where light moves must be there prior to the light itself.
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-08T15:28:48.493Z
Unless there is some evidence that light itself "creates" space and, unless there is some evidence that space can move faster than light, the expansion of the universe doesn't make sense. What does make sense is that we can't see beyond a given horizon of light until the light itself reaches such.
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-09T17:42:54.640Z
@Justin Chapman : we have evidence that the universe is expanding. Sorry if I misunderstodd some aspect/s of your question. Maybe you should answer a series of questions to tease out the various issues here.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-08T10:36:16.447Z
@JohnDuffield At last. Somebody pointing how the actual observations are conceptually separated from our theories, in contrast with some other contributors here who see two or three naked singularities each day before breakfast. I would +10 if I could.
kubanczyk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-09T17:10:50.030Z
@kubanczyk : thanks. It can be difficult to give simple factual answers and avoid straying into speculation.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-09T18:46:54.160Z
@JohnDuffield, Yes, but then there is also evidence that the universe is infinite, so yeah, sorry about that.
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-09T18:50:49.467Z
@JohnDuffield, at any rate, I think I asked a lot of quesitons there that you don't seem able to answer or are unwilling. Thanks for trying though.
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-10T17:33:33.160Z
@Justin Chapman : what's the evidence for an infinite universe? Yes, there are some things I'm unable to answer. Sorry about that. But I haven't been unwilling.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-01T19:32:36.500Z
@JohnDuffield, I'm happy to quote experts on it, you can check out the interview link: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/People/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk, if you like. The notion that the universe is flat, which is what it is thought to be by most, means that it is infinite. I know there is a pretty solid mathmatical equation from geometry that shows that the universe is either infinite or so big as to be indistinguishable from infinity.
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-02T11:28:25.567Z
@Justin Chapman : there's still no evidence that the universe is infinite. And I'm afraid it just doesn't follow that a flat universe is infinite. I've read that old Joseph Silk interview previously. By the way, the Planck mission didn't find any evidence for any toroidal universe. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5086
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-03T15:28:46.310Z
@JohnDuffield, the WMAP provides strong evidence that the universe is flat, and here universe is of course the known universe. We don't [know] that inflationary theory is correct, but according to this theory, even if the universe has some curvature, the observable universe should be flat at the level at which we're capable of measuring it. (Astrophysics department at Cornell, June 27 2015)

Thanks anyways for asserting that there is no evidence, I think I'd quote Cornell before I quoted you.
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-03T18:16:05.577Z
@Justin Chapman : I'm happy that the universe is flat. Even if there had been no evidence from WMAP etc, I'd be saying _I think it's flat_. The issue is with saying a flat universe is an infinite universe. It's a non-sequitur.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-08T15:04:42.927Z
@JohnDuffield, sorry I had thought you were looking for evidence that it is flat, and not infinite. Yes, there surely is evidence that it is infinite, but whether you accept it as evidence or not is another story. First, there is no evidence that the universe has some edge. Hence, as far as can be detected, it is boundless. That doesn't mean it is, rather it means as far as we know it is. :) You can see an article on it here, for example: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/174427-astrophysicists-create-the-first-accurate-map-of-the-universe-its-very-flat-and-probably-infinite
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-09T16:08:28.900Z
@Justin Chapman : there good evidence that the universe is flat, but IMHO it's a non-sequitur to claim that this is evidence for an infinite universe. There's also good evidence that the universe is expanding. IMHO this is evidence that the universe is _not_ infinite.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-10T18:09:24.157Z
Like I said, even if you accept that the detectable universe is "expanding" meaning only that galaxies are moving away from each other and not that spacetime is somehow growing...into what, one must wonder, such doesn't mean that those galaxies don't move into something that is already there. I'm afraid this point can't be answered because scientists simply don't know. It can be asserted of course that at one point everything in existence was concentrated into a single ball, but sadly this still doesn't make sense. Where was the point? The point existed...somewhere. It's just we don't know.
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-10T18:13:29.960Z
It would make a lot more sense to say that all of the stuff that is now galaxy, star, and basically anything that is detectable material or matter was once so heavily concentrated that it exploded and has been expanding since. What doesn't make sense about such is how things came to a stand still if between all the debris there is so little gravity. As well, if it had exploded, there is still the enigma of expansion. Look at it like a bomb that explodes in an air tight box 22 miles thick in every direction. Sadly, the bomb won't explode. It will start exploding and then be forced to stop.
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-10T18:15:26.487Z
If there was nothing, it should follow that the explosion not be able to happen since it would have to move into something. If you try to undermine such by saying, space is also the universe, it still doesn't work. If the universe is expanding it must be expanding into something. If it were restricted by nothing, then it wouldn't expand. I'm not saying that it is easy to solve I'm just saying it hasn't been sovled and the big bang's explanation doesn't make sense although it might account for more evidence than other hypotheses.
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-10T20:09:00.890Z
@Justin Chapman : I know some of the answers to _some_ of the above, but the explanations are too wordy for comments. Please ask one or more questions. Note however that I don't know how or why (or even if) the universe began, or why the Big Bang occurred.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-07T14:03:50.080Z
2016-01-07T14:03:50.080Z
John Duffield
<p>Well, I'm not going to pretend I am right, or what I say is how it is, but I have been the person to ask those same questions before, and heres what I know now. First, ditch the whole 'nothing' component of the big bang. Its easy to think of the big bang as being an event in time, but it isn't, its the t=0 on your time line. Before that would be negative time, and its not that there are not theories about negative time, but for observation's sake we'll leave it out.</p>

<p>At t=0 all the matter today was present then, there was just no distance between each point, and this is regardless of your position in the universe. It wasn't a distance from some point that was 0, rather all points, pick any two points and their distance measured to be 0. In regard to what the universe is expanding "in to", if our universe was truly at a point of infinite density, it wouldn't be expanding into anything.</p>

<p>If its hard to come to grips with space expanding, and the confusion about where this empty space is coming from, then look at it in a different way. How long does it take to go from A to B, if its 0 seconds then distance is 0. But if its greater than 0, you have distance. And if its infinity, you have infinite distance.</p>

<p>In all honesty there are still questions that need to be answered, and while there are many good models of the universe out there, they seem to hold an incomplete picture, evident by the still on going debate.</p>

<p>So to conclude, there was no before, and there was no nothing either. Matter in the universe has apparently remained constant, and there doesn't seem to be any indication that this would be broken as it has remained that way ever since. <em>I would ignore the time stuff I said for now</em>, its better for comprehending this rather than the reality of it. Hope this helped.</p>

<p>While this isn't the best answer in the universe, hopefully its a step for you to find the answer you are looking for.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-15T09:18:28.823Z
Great answer(!), yes it did help. I upvoted it, but for this particular stacks site I sadly don’t have enough points for the upvote to change the answer publicly. But yes the answer makes sense to me. You basically say there is no space prior to the Big Bang, nor time. In said hypothesis or explanation of the Big Bang, that would seem coherent to me in that matter was once distanceless, which I guess is impossible but easier to grant charitably than to grant that everything was once a bubble inside nothing and that said bubble expanded exponentially but that into which it expanded isn’t there.
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-15T09:19:39.090Z
You also grant right away that you are open to changing your answer, which to me is a great sign of rationality. Your point about 1 and 0 if to represent time and distance helped a lot!
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-15T09:21:17.767Z
So in short yeah, great answer and one that I liked the most in ever discussing it with anyone. The answers I tend to get are smug or blindly follow the consensus without regard to what I’m actually asking. Thanks :-)
Private Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-17T02:41:35.083Z
Glad that I helped! I was nervous about the reception to my response but I am happy to hear that it had a positive impact, all be it surprised. While stack exchange can have consequences for asking improper questions, keep asking those questions, here or somewhere else, as it is this curiosity that will eventually find answers to the questions that arise from this confusing universe. :)
Terran
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-14T08:35:22.977Z
2018-02-28T00:44:24.157Z
2018-02-28T00:44:24.157Z
Terran
<p>The Big Bang did not happen at a single point, nor did the Universe begin at a single point. The Universe is, and has always been, infinite. The Big Bang was just when the Universe's expansion really began — that is, when objects started drifting away from each other. The Universe was still infinite, but there was less space between the matter.</p>

<p>This density caused the Universe to get extremely hot and expand. So here, space itself was distorted and began to expand. More and more space was created between the matter, and still is now (although now it is mainly due to dark energy instead of heat).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-10T20:23:36.857Z
We have no evidence that the universe is and always been infinite. I'm afraid this is a popscience myth that started to gain ground from about 2013 when WMAP evidence suggested the universe was flat. Some people then claimed that a flat universe had to be an infinite universe, even though it's a non-sequitur. To appreciate this, note that we can see the curvature of the Earth. And note that if we couldn't, then if some guy told you the Earth was infinite, you'd tell him to take a running jump.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-10T14:33:49.883Z
@JohnDuffield I'll admit I'm not an expert, but [this paper](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1979QJRAS..20...37E) does seem to claim that an infinite universe is the most logical conclusion. The paper is short--would you mind addressing its contents? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding them.
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-08T05:37:34.380Z
2016-03-08T05:37:34.380Z
Sir Cumference
<p>In the Big Bang model of the Universe, every observable thing is thought to have expanded very abruptly from a point of infinite density and zero volume. However, the problem with this assertion is that for something to expand it first needs a locality in which to do such, which brings us to my question. How can scientists believe that "everything" was condensed and then suddenly expanded, since such is automatically an oxymoron?</p>

<p>Expansion is a physical property of the universe and yet if "everything" had no where to expand, how could it have expanded? There was "nothing," was there not? Even if we drop the big bang model and talk about "everything's" being in a singularity point, the question still stands.</p>

<p>Where was the singularity point? Asked differently, into what is everything expanding (which is a rhetorical question I ask to implicate space-time as necessarily existing irrespective of any theoretical expansion and likely so vastly that one might as well assume that space-time is infinitely large).   </p>

<p>As well, it seems counter-intuitive, as little impressive a word as that is given its context here, that something like... well, "everything" could be condensed in the first place, let alone infinitely condensed and with zero volume. When thinking about the big-bang model, I can't help but conclude that a mere analogy was originally used for stellar birth, evolution and finally explosion. The issue though is still extension.</p>

<p>As far as I understood it, the big bang model states that space itself was also condensed along with everything else in the observable universe to a point of singularity. So, if that's the case, then [where] was the singularity point?</p>

<p>It ends up becoming an infinite regress, of course. Or, if you don't like the issue of "time" presupposed by my question, then look at the question after the universe started expanding. All the matter had to expand somewhere and "somewhere" is not "nothing." - It just seems that the model is somehow overlooking said feature of the actual universe and trying to account for it by mere assertion.</p>

<p>If you want to call it space-time, extension, space, where everything supposedly expanded to and is and is still expanding to, then that's my question. How does the theory allege where everything is yet at the same time assert that prior to the singularity point, there was literally nothing.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-07T00:48:32.970Z
See https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/13060/center-of-the-universe - the universe has never been one single point.
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-07T05:09:38.653Z
Some good questions.   The center of the observable universe is you.   The big bang (or everywhere stretch), happened everywhere but to the observable universe, you are the center and, so am I and so is he and so is that star way way way over there.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs  and similar question here.   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173001/big-bang-or-everywhere-stretch
userLTK
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-08T01:24:13.247Z
@FuriousCat an oxymoron is a rhetorical device, but as with most such devices, oxymoron isn't strictly literary. Too, a contradiction in terms is exactly an oxymoron, but likewise, can be used to show paradoxical concepts and the like. If I were you’d I’d look it up. Maybe start with Merriam Webster’s (unabridged dictionary). Good luck with reading comprehension as well as learning to properly verify in the future. Lecturing is fun, but you have to learn to check first.
Private Name
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-09T22:49:30.633Z
@furios cat I expected you to try to double down.  Better luck lecturing people on standard English in the future.
Private Name
<big-bang-theory><space-time>
Question about space-time
Private Name
# Question about space-time

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-01-07)

In the Big Bang model of the Universe, every observable thing is thought to have expanded very abruptly from a point of infinite density and zero volume. However, the problem with this assertion is that for something to expand it first needs a locality in which to do such, which brings us to my question. How can scientists believe that "everything" was condensed and then suddenly expanded, since such is automatically an oxymoron?

Expansion is a physical property of the universe and yet if "everything" had no where to expand, how could it have expanded? There was "nothing," was there not? Even if we drop the big bang model and talk about "everything's" being in a singularity point, the question still stands.

Where was the singularity point? Asked differently, into what is everything expanding (which is a rhetorical question I ask to implicate space-time as necessarily existing irrespective of any theoretical expansion and likely so vastly that one might as well assume that space-time is infinitely large).

As well, it seems counter-intuitive, as little impressive a word as that is given its context here, that something like... well, "everything" could be condensed in the first place, let alone infinitely condensed and with zero volume. When thinking about the big-bang model, I can't help but conclude that a mere analogy was originally used for stellar birth, evolution and finally explosion. The issue though is still extension.

As far as I understood it, the big bang model states that space itself was also condensed along with everything else in the observable universe to a point of singularity. So, if that's the case, then [where] was the singularity point?

It ends up becoming an infinite regress, of course. Or, if you don't like the issue of "time" presupposed by my question, then look at the question after the universe started expanding. All the matter had to expand somewhere and "somewhere" is not "nothing." - It just seems that the model is somehow overlooking said feature of the actual universe and trying to account for it by mere assertion.

If you want to call it space-time, extension, space, where everything supposedly expanded to and is and is still expanding to, then that's my question. How does the theory allege where everything is yet at the same time assert that prior to the singularity point, there was literally nothing.

**Tags:** big-bang-theory, space-time
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: See https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/13060/center-of-the-universe - the universe has never been one single point.  
> **username_2**: Some good questions.   The center of the observable universe is you.   The big bang (or everywhere stretch), happened everywhere but to the observable universe, you are the center and, so am I and so is he and so is that star way way way over there.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs  and similar question here.   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173001/big-bang-or-everywhere-stretch  
> **username_0**: @FuriousCat an oxymoron is a rhetorical device, but as with most such devices, oxymoron isn't strictly literary. Too, a contradiction in terms is exactly an oxymoron, but likewise, can be used to show paradoxical concepts and the like. If I were you’d I’d look it up. Maybe start with Merriam Webster’s (unabridged dictionary). Good luck with reading comprehension as well as learning to properly verify in the future. Lecturing is fun, but you have to learn to check first.  
> **username_0**: @furios cat I expected you to try to double down.  Better luck lecturing people on standard English in the future.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-01-07. Score: 1

> In the big bang model of the Universe, every observable thing is thought to have expanded very abruptly from a point of infinite density and zero volume.

Thats not quite true. Have a look at [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity) where you can read this:

*"Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[18] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity and thus, all the laws of physics. How closely this can be extrapolated toward the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[19] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[20][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our universe."*

You can't necessarily extrapolate back all the way to a point singularity.

> However, the problem with this assertion is that for something to expand it first needs a locality in which to do such, which brings us to my question.

There's no problem with *space* expanding. Don't think of space as nothing, Einstein didn't, and nor do modern physicists such as Nobel prizewinner [Robert B Laughlin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum).

> How can scientists believe that "everything" was condensed and then suddenly expanded, since such is automatically an oxymoron?

Because there's good scientific [evidence that the universe is expanding](https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=evidence+expanding+universe&gbv=2&oq=evidence+expanding+universe&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0j0i22i30l9.1186.6803.0.6927.27.26.0.1.1.0.140.2182.24j2.26.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.27.2197.Qzx_JQ-rxXY). And when you "wind back the clock" you find that all the galaxies were in the same place 13.8 billion years ago.

> Expansion is a physical property of the universe and yet if "everything" had no where to expand, how could it have expanded? There was "nothing," was there not?

No. Space expanded, and space isn't nothing. As to what caused the big bang to occur, I don't know. Nor do I know what the universe was like 13.8 billion years ago. But I know of no infinities in nature, and I would challenge the alleged point singularity at the centre of a black hole and refer instead to the [frozen star interpretation](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=frozen+star+black+hole&hl=en-GB&biw=&bih=&gbv=2&oq=frozen+star+black+hole&gs_l=heirloom-serp.3..0.236701.245814.0.246219.22.13.0.9.9.0.140.953.12j1.13.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..0.22.984.Q0uo6M303wE). In similar vein I would challenge the alleged point-singularity 13.8 billion years ago.

> Even if we drop the big bang model and talk about "everything's" being in a singularity point, the question still stands. Where was the singularity point?

I think you shouldn't drop the big bang model, but instead you should drop the singularity.

> Asked differently, into what is everything expanding?

Nothing. I know this is hard to imagine, but try to. Space is expanding, and there is no space beyond it. So there *is* no beyond it. As to whether this means you end up coming back round full circle or the universe is some ["hall of mirrors"](http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/24/universe.wide/) or something else, I don't know.

> (which is a rhetorical question I ask to implicate space-time as necessarily existing irrespective of any theoretical expansion and likely so vastly that one might as well assume that space-time is infinitely large).

No, one might not. Because the universe doesn't expand for nothing. It expands because space has a kind of innate "pressure", as per the energy-pressure diagonal in the [stress-energy-momentum tensor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor). And if the universe was infinite, the pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. An infinite universe could not expand.

> When thinking about the big-bang model, I can't help but conclude that a mere analogy was originally used

For an analogy, get a [stress ball](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stress+ball&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&prmd=ivnsp&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiuuuW7ZfKAhUG1xQKHZRNCEwQsAQIMw) and squeeze it down in your fist. Then let go.

> The issue though is still extension. As far as I understood it, the big bang model states that space itself was also condensed along with everything else in the observable universe to a point of singularity.

See what I said above. Big bang cosmology doesn't actually say everything was condensed to point singularity.

> All the matter had to expand somewhere

There wasn't any matter initially. Remember the wave nature of matter, and pair production. We can quite literally make matter out of electromagnetic waves. These wave propagate through space, and are effectively wave sin space. So we make matter out of waves in space. So start with space, and do somehting to it such that it rings like a bell and is full of waves and starts expanding. As to what, I don't know.

> How does the theory allege where everything is yet at the same time assert that prior to the singularity point, there was literally nothing?

It doesn't. It goes back as far as a very dense universe. The stuff you hear about a point singularity and creation ex-nihilo is popscience, not big bang cosmology.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Actually it has been determined that the Universe is indeed infinite and it is also expanding as well .  
> **username_3**: @Peter U : it hasn't been determined that the universe is infinite. That's a popscience non-sequitur that started being bandied around in circa 2013 when [WMAP](http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html) measurements indicated the universe was flat.  
> **username_0**: @JohnDuffield, there are a few things you seemed to read around or not follow carefully in my question. I never said that space is nothing. I distinctly separated the two and asked where space is. The answer is of course that we don't know. As well, unfortunately, the big bang theory doesn't work in that the evidence doesn't support a gigantic explosion. It doesn't follow that the universe "is expanding" if all that is expanding is the visible light itself. As well, it doesnt' follow that it is expanding "no where." Tautology, not my problem. Saying "try" is your shortcoming.  
> **username_0**: It does no good to say that the balloon that is our "universe" contains space within it and that prior to its "expansion," there was nothing. Such is a positive claim that cannot be supported by evidence. Just say, "if the big bang occurred, it is not known how it could have occurred," since such would negate all the known laws of physics in several respects. One, even if everything were squeezed into a tiny dot, then there would still be everything and not nothing. Just in a tiny dot. Two, where that dot would be would necessarily be somewhere, and a place is a thing, not a nothing. Etc.  
> **username_0**: As well, that light travels doesn't mean that the universe is traveling. That it takes light a certain time before reaching us says nothing about whether space moves. If light (thing) moves into the unseen/unknown of that which is later the known universe, then the place in which it travels was there prior to the light's traveling there, regardless of our knowledge of that place. Hence, there is a causal relation to said place, just an inductive one. Based on the fact that "nothing exceeds the speed of light" where light moves must be there prior to the light itself.  
> **username_0**: Unless there is some evidence that light itself "creates" space and, unless there is some evidence that space can move faster than light, the expansion of the universe doesn't make sense. What does make sense is that we can't see beyond a given horizon of light until the light itself reaches such.  
> **username_3**: @Justin Chapman : we have evidence that the universe is expanding. Sorry if I misunderstodd some aspect/s of your question. Maybe you should answer a series of questions to tease out the various issues here.  
> **username_5**: @JohnDuffield At last. Somebody pointing how the actual observations are conceptually separated from our theories, in contrast with some other contributors here who see two or three naked singularities each day before breakfast. I would +10 if I could.  
> **username_3**: @kubanczyk : thanks. It can be difficult to give simple factual answers and avoid straying into speculation.  
> **username_0**: @JohnDuffield, Yes, but then there is also evidence that the universe is infinite, so yeah, sorry about that.  
> **username_0**: @JohnDuffield, at any rate, I think I asked a lot of quesitons there that you don't seem able to answer or are unwilling. Thanks for trying though.  
> **username_3**: @Justin Chapman : what's the evidence for an infinite universe? Yes, there are some things I'm unable to answer. Sorry about that. But I haven't been unwilling.  
> **username_0**: @JohnDuffield, I'm happy to quote experts on it, you can check out the interview link: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/People/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk, if you like. The notion that the universe is flat, which is what it is thought to be by most, means that it is infinite. I know there is a pretty solid mathmatical equation from geometry that shows that the universe is either infinite or so big as to be indistinguishable from infinity.  
> **username_3**: @Justin Chapman : there's still no evidence that the universe is infinite. And I'm afraid it just doesn't follow that a flat universe is infinite. I've read that old Joseph Silk interview previously. By the way, the Planck mission didn't find any evidence for any toroidal universe. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5086  
> **username_0**: @JohnDuffield, the WMAP provides strong evidence that the universe is flat, and here universe is of course the known universe. We don't [know] that inflationary theory is correct, but according to this theory, even if the universe has some curvature, the observable universe should be flat at the level at which we're capable of measuring it. (Astrophysics department at Cornell, June 27 2015)  Thanks anyways for asserting that there is no evidence, I think I'd quote Cornell before I quoted you.  
> **username_3**: @Justin Chapman : I'm happy that the universe is flat. Even if there had been no evidence from WMAP etc, I'd be saying _I think it's flat_. The issue is with saying a flat universe is an infinite universe. It's a non-sequitur.  
> **username_0**: @JohnDuffield, sorry I had thought you were looking for evidence that it is flat, and not infinite. Yes, there surely is evidence that it is infinite, but whether you accept it as evidence or not is another story. First, there is no evidence that the universe has some edge. Hence, as far as can be detected, it is boundless. That doesn't mean it is, rather it means as far as we know it is. :) You can see an article on it here, for example: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/174427-astrophysicists-create-the-first-accurate-map-of-the-universe-its-very-flat-and-probably-infinite  
> **username_3**: @Justin Chapman : there good evidence that the universe is flat, but IMHO it's a non-sequitur to claim that this is evidence for an infinite universe. There's also good evidence that the universe is expanding. IMHO this is evidence that the universe is _not_ infinite.  
> **username_0**: Like I said, even if you accept that the detectable universe is "expanding" meaning only that galaxies are moving away from each other and not that spacetime is somehow growing...into what, one must wonder, such doesn't mean that those galaxies don't move into something that is already there. I'm afraid this point can't be answered because scientists simply don't know. It can be asserted of course that at one point everything in existence was concentrated into a single ball, but sadly this still doesn't make sense. Where was the point? The point existed...somewhere. It's just we don't know.  
> **username_0**: It would make a lot more sense to say that all of the stuff that is now galaxy, star, and basically anything that is detectable material or matter was once so heavily concentrated that it exploded and has been expanding since. What doesn't make sense about such is how things came to a stand still if between all the debris there is so little gravity. As well, if it had exploded, there is still the enigma of expansion. Look at it like a bomb that explodes in an air tight box 22 miles thick in every direction. Sadly, the bomb won't explode. It will start exploding and then be forced to stop.  
> **username_0**: If there was nothing, it should follow that the explosion not be able to happen since it would have to move into something. If you try to undermine such by saying, space is also the universe, it still doesn't work. If the universe is expanding it must be expanding into something. If it were restricted by nothing, then it wouldn't expand. I'm not saying that it is easy to solve I'm just saying it hasn't been sovled and the big bang's explanation doesn't make sense although it might account for more evidence than other hypotheses.  
> **username_3**: @Justin Chapman : I know some of the answers to _some_ of the above, but the explanations are too wordy for comments. Please ask one or more questions. Note however that I don't know how or why (or even if) the universe began, or why the Big Bang occurred.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2017-12-14. Score: 1

Well, I'm not going to pretend I am right, or what I say is how it is, but I have been the person to ask those same questions before, and heres what I know now. First, ditch the whole 'nothing' component of the big bang. Its easy to think of the big bang as being an event in time, but it isn't, its the t=0 on your time line. Before that would be negative time, and its not that there are not theories about negative time, but for observation's sake we'll leave it out.

At t=0 all the matter today was present then, there was just no distance between each point, and this is regardless of your position in the universe. It wasn't a distance from some point that was 0, rather all points, pick any two points and their distance measured to be 0. In regard to what the universe is expanding "in to", if our universe was truly at a point of infinite density, it wouldn't be expanding into anything.

If its hard to come to grips with space expanding, and the confusion about where this empty space is coming from, then look at it in a different way. How long does it take to go from A to B, if its 0 seconds then distance is 0. But if its greater than 0, you have distance. And if its infinity, you have infinite distance.

In all honesty there are still questions that need to be answered, and while there are many good models of the universe out there, they seem to hold an incomplete picture, evident by the still on going debate.

So to conclude, there was no before, and there was no nothing either. Matter in the universe has apparently remained constant, and there doesn't seem to be any indication that this would be broken as it has remained that way ever since. *I would ignore the time stuff I said for now*, its better for comprehending this rather than the reality of it. Hope this helped.

While this isn't the best answer in the universe, hopefully its a step for you to find the answer you are looking for.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Great answer(!), yes it did help. I upvoted it, but for this particular stacks site I sadly don’t have enough points for the upvote to change the answer publicly. But yes the answer makes sense to me. You basically say there is no space prior to the Big Bang, nor time. In said hypothesis or explanation of the Big Bang, that would seem coherent to me in that matter was once distanceless, which I guess is impossible but easier to grant charitably than to grant that everything was once a bubble inside nothing and that said bubble expanded exponentially but that into which it expanded isn’t there.  
> **username_0**: You also grant right away that you are open to changing your answer, which to me is a great sign of rationality. Your point about 1 and 0 if to represent time and distance helped a lot!  
> **username_0**: So in short yeah, great answer and one that I liked the most in ever discussing it with anyone. The answers I tend to get are smug or blindly follow the consensus without regard to what I’m actually asking. Thanks :-)  
> **username_6**: Glad that I helped! I was nervous about the reception to my response but I am happy to hear that it had a positive impact, all be it surprised. While stack exchange can have consequences for asking improper questions, keep asking those questions, here or somewhere else, as it is this curiosity that will eventually find answers to the questions that arise from this confusing universe. :)  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2016-03-08. Score: -2

The Big Bang did not happen at a single point, nor did the Universe begin at a single point. The Universe is, and has always been, infinite. The Big Bang was just when the Universe's expansion really began — that is, when objects started drifting away from each other. The Universe was still infinite, but there was less space between the matter.

This density caused the Universe to get extremely hot and expand. So here, space itself was distorted and began to expand. More and more space was created between the matter, and still is now (although now it is mainly due to dark energy instead of heat).

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: We have no evidence that the universe is and always been infinite. I'm afraid this is a popscience myth that started to gain ground from about 2013 when WMAP evidence suggested the universe was flat. Some people then claimed that a flat universe had to be an infinite universe, even though it's a non-sequitur. To appreciate this, note that we can see the curvature of the Earth. And note that if we couldn't, then if some guy told you the Earth was infinite, you'd tell him to take a running jump.  
> **username_8**: @JohnDuffield I'll admit I'm not an expert, but [this paper](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1979QJRAS..20...37E) does seem to claim that an infinite universe is the most logical conclusion. The paper is short--would you mind addressing its contents? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding them.  

---

