Survey: Would not Professor Guth's "Expansionary Universe" cosmological Big Bang theory work better if we...?

Question

...considered that what the "Big Bang" initial material expanded into was more like a "liquid," rather than empty space? Like an "underwater explosion? In other words...empty space is more like a "fluid," rather than a "vacuum?"

Answer 1

It isn't really a theory on the origin of the universe if it begins with fluids already existing. Where did the fluids come from?

Answer 2

Well, hmm...indeed, though, as has been referenced,

it's all about SOURCE!

*I mean, never mind Chicken (roasted) or Egg (basted) ...mmm,

and why'm I hungry alluvasudden?...

No, seriously...From whence did what we call Love or,

Benevolence stem:  Dense matter which exploded for

some reason into a perfect order of orbitery and balance?

Which of course is never questioned, yet when THIS is

brought-up, there's more-or-less equal amount of

animosity as when, "Please--let's think about things!"

is brought into absolutely-no-room-for-reason-or-logic

discussions of what is referred-to as spirituality...

Can we figure the depths of space, when pit against

our mere fragility, yet we know we're given the tools

to in fact understand and calculate with approaching-flawless

estimates as to our "purpose".

If only better opportunity existed for all, as opposed

to the insipid growth of the Dumbdown Project...

I'll pause here for the decorum of this scope.

Answer 3

The Big Bang initial material must have contained even space, vacuum or otherwise. There was nothing outside it. Every part of this universe comes from within.

But yes, though only in some ways, relationships between objects (i.e. space) in the universe in some ways can be described better in terms of fluid (but not liquid) rather than a vacuum.

Answer 4

Alan Guth's 1979 inflation theory was supplanted almost immediately by Andrei Linde with chaotic inflation in 1983.   It removes the necessity for a hot Universe before inflation and also removes the weakness of Guth's inflation that meant the Universe ended up a lot less homogenous than it really is.  

The vacuum is part of the Universe, it is not something that space-time expanded into.  The Universe expands into nothing, there is no thing outside it.

Answer 5

Thankyou for asking a question I know a lot about..* the big bang..I think the theory..bit is boring..I like the..practical..getting down to business  time..myself..*smile

Answer 6

I just had a very tasty lunch.  I ate too much, my stomach is heavy now.

Inform Professor Guth, accordingly.

Answer 7

Makes sense to me..... more so than vacuum. More prone to a bang in molecule filled liquid than a space devoid of air and molecules/matter, as to define a vacuum.

Hmmm...... something to ponder.......

But, what made the "Big Bang" happen? Hmm?? :')

Answer 8

I think big bang definitely includes fluid, before and during.