I think it’s a logical necessity for the universe to be infinite, at least spatially. In order to be finite, it needs to have something outside of it to set a boundary containing it. But if that were the case, then there must be something beyond it, which means the space contained within that boundary would not be the entirety of the universe.
Whether that space beyond is filled with anything or simply empty until stuff expands into it is a different question. And whether there were multiple other big bangs incomprehensibly far away from the observable universe is another question too. But neither of those possibilities implies that the big bang would have happened at every point in space simultaneously.
Another reason that possibility is untenable is because of heat dissipation. If every point in space exploded simultaneously, not only would there be nowhere for the force to go, but there would be nowhere for the heat to dissipate too, either. The heat would be uniformly distributed throughout space, offering no possibility of cooling down and coalescing into denser states of matter. The pressure would also be infinite, with no gradient. Everything would simply be an ocean of gammawaves, with no room for expansion.
Sorry, I’m not a physicist, but the big bang happening everywhere at once isn’t up for debate. As far as I understand, it’s a well-settled fact. Read the article!
I don’t think anything in theoretical physics is well-settled fact.
Edit:
After a century of observations and theoretical advances, cosmologists can confidently state that the universe is infinite—or perhaps not. The question remains deeply complex. Current evidence suggests our expanding universe lacks both a center and edge, with the Big Bang occurring everywhere simultaneously rather than from a single point. Recent cosmic microwave background measurements indicate nearly flat geometry, supporting infinite extent theories, though alternative models proposing finite, curved space remain possible.
Yeah, nothing about that says “well-settled fact.” Quite the opposite. Either what you said is disinfo or you need to check your reading comprehension.
I think it’s a logical necessity for the universe to be infinite, at least spatially. In order to be finite, it needs to have something outside of it to set a boundary containing it. But if that were the case, then there must be something beyond it, which means the space contained within that boundary would not be the entirety of the universe.
Whether that space beyond is filled with anything or simply empty until stuff expands into it is a different question. And whether there were multiple other big bangs incomprehensibly far away from the observable universe is another question too. But neither of those possibilities implies that the big bang would have happened at every point in space simultaneously.
Another reason that possibility is untenable is because of heat dissipation. If every point in space exploded simultaneously, not only would there be nowhere for the force to go, but there would be nowhere for the heat to dissipate too, either. The heat would be uniformly distributed throughout space, offering no possibility of cooling down and coalescing into denser states of matter. The pressure would also be infinite, with no gradient. Everything would simply be an ocean of gammawaves, with no room for expansion.
Sorry, I’m not a physicist, but the big bang happening everywhere at once isn’t up for debate. As far as I understand, it’s a well-settled fact. Read the article!
I don’t think anything in theoretical physics is well-settled fact.
Edit:
Yeah, nothing about that says “well-settled fact.” Quite the opposite. Either what you said is disinfo or you need to check your reading comprehension.