Why does every one when talking about the Big Bang always pass over the initial expatiation (the first second)?

Yes, a lot of things are glanced over when talking about the beginnings of the physical universe. What was going on say 10 seconds before the so-called Big Bang? That is not talked about.

In the physical universe, the speed of light is the speed limit, nothing can go faster. You might think an explosion that began the universe was moving fast but compared to the speed of light, any explosion is not nearly as fast as the speed of light.

In other dimensions, it is possible that things can travel faster than the speed of light but not in the one we are currently living in. All good questions that you ask.

You might be interested in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE

It presents some of the issues involved.

>> Why does every one when talking about the Big Bang always pass over the initial expatiation (the first second)?

It must be the same reason that every one when talking about how to raise children always pass over the initial creation of that child.

"Expatiation" means to write about something, with a lot of details. I can't figure out what you mean when you use that word in your question. The inflationary period certainly did not violate the speed of light rule, or E = mc^2. I don't know where you got the idea that it did, because any decent explanation of this period includes how they were not violated. I can only guess that you aren't paying attention to decent explanations.

Are you upset about the state of advanced cosmological research, or the way it is presented to kids below college-level? A search for "inflation" on arxiv.org gets more than 1000 hits, so it is certainly an active area.

Let's consider a hypothetical situation.

Take only one dimension, and you travel in a straight line, attempting to make a displacement of zero. You'll have to travel infinitely long to do that.

Take the second dimension, and you can complete that in a circular path, given the radius.

Take the third dimension, and you can do that by travelling just two times the length of the diameter.

Progressing in such a way, we find that as the number of dimensions increase, the distance decreases and the speed increases, irrespective of the time taken. So at the time of Big Bang, nearly everything was concentrated in a single point, and the number of dimensions would have been infinite, and the speed of expansion of the universe also would've been infinite (or at least faster than that of light). That is why we ignore that point of time (10^-32nd of a second), mainly because the number of dimensions at that time would've not been specified (I'll return to this later).

Also, the curvature of that universe was so high that effects were just like those in quantum mechanics, but also, curvature formed a part of General relativity. Thus, scientists could understand that those effects could be discussed only in a unified theory of General relativity and quantum mechanics, and that is what is happening right now. But we don't have this theory fully accomplished, and this is another reason for not being able to study that universe, and general relativity's role becomes a question.

The thing is that relativity and all such concepts are formulated on the basis of a four-dimensional universe (three space dimensions and one time dimension) and not on infinite dimensions. Thus, this law breaks down there, and e = mc^2 doesn't work. But once we unify general relativity with quantum mechanics, there's a possibility of studying that universe easily.

A single unified theory known as M-Theory is a candidate for explaining the entire universe. It is said to work on a 11 dimensional universe, and its subordinate theories, the string theories are formed on the basis of being smaller than quarks (particles that make up protons and neutrons). Thus, M-Theory can also find a solution to your question (if really found).

Hope this helps.

Well, to address your first question: Because "the big bang theory" does not address that point in time. The big bang theory is <<all>> about the expansion of the universe, not the start of it.

The term "big bang" was created as a term of derision by an astronomer who did not believe that the universe was expanding. Sadly, most people misinterpret that and think that the theory describes the start of the universe, and that it describes the start as an explosion. Both of those are wrong.

It is not possible for anything with <<mass>> to go as fast as, or faster than, the speed of light. However, it is totally possible for <<space>> to expand at greater than the speed of light.

Yes, god dont sent good human to hell but bad human is sure to hell.. If not why your book have hell?

How you believed god are by denying the god you can understand

You refuse to use your brain to understand science and deny your own life too? No use, god take back your brain this october 9th..

No use, why waste it on you..

God cannot take back your brain? Wonder what you have to stop him.

Best answer? All my question come with answer cos that is why your book have someone expected to come one day to tell the truth.

Son of god mean his father is a god not him, son of man come to tell human the truth and to do that..

Son of man need to know everything and who know everything in your book. Son of man is a god

Me dont know your secret? Even who living inside you need me to tell you

If you're expecting physicists to approach you on the street for a chat you're going to remain in the dark