The Big Bang and Absolute Zero

I was wondering... I find it hard to believe that all matter in the universe was compressed into a little dot that exploded. That is, until I thought of something else. Absolute zero is an unreachable temperature because of, by laws of pressure, the volume of the gas itself would reach zero which is impossible because matter cannot be destroyed or simply 'disappear'. That part was hard for me to take in because I thought "can't the atoms stop moving and just be touching each other without vanishing into nothing?" That, unfortunately, was answered by a 'no'. He said that people have tried, and still do, to reach that temperature of no movement, and can get close, but never actually reach it.Now, taking in my thought that I haven't thrown away because of utter defiance, if all the matter was compressed at absolute zero, that would allow it to be held in such a dot AND give reason for the giant explosion (all that pressure instantly released).Any thoughts on this? Anything like "your entirely wrong, quit now" or "maybe... just maybe"?

Quite nice, IMHO. Dip a balloon in liquid nitrogen. You will notice it shrinks as it gets colder. Dip a balloon in a pot of water and heat it up. The balloon will expand as it gets hotter.I don't know if any of you caught that show on absolute zero that nova aired a while back, but it talked about the first time people turned hydrogen (and helium) into a liquid. It also talked about how they got their ideas off of how someone (forgot his name) turned other gases into liquids. That person exerted great pressure onto a gas (IE decreased its volume) to the point where it liquefied. Also, by liquefied, it actually was colder. It didn't suddenly spring back into a gas when he released the pressure. I did an experiment on Charles Law. If you extend the sections of the graph (I did three), they all meet at 0 volume, 0 kelvin.En.wiki sums it up the best with (Charles Law): Notice the gas part. If the fact that it is gas screws up everything, let me know. I don't see how it could, however, as every element has the potential to become a gas at a certain temperature. (Especially since everything used and tested with Charles Law becomes a liquid/solid as it goes down the scale. What about Bose-Einstein condensate? (That word took a very, very long time to find, so appreciate it. I hate knowing what it is but not its name...) Roughly, it is a state of matter "a large fraction of the atoms collapse into the lowest quantum state of the external potential, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale." It is found at impossibly low temperatures, but it has been achieved.As for your definition of the Big Bang, it makes a lot more sense than a little explosive dot, but at the same time it makes less sense. Maybe my thinking is too narrow, but I can't comprehend how, why, or if space is expanding. My thinking is, if you were to go in some zippy little spaceship that could travel faster than the rate of 'expansion', you would never reach an end of space. Can you elaborate on this please?Thanks for the reply.

I mean Charles Law: V1/T1 = V2/T2, the one used to find absolute value in the first place. At least, I was fully capable of finding absolute value with it. So when using Charles law, is it automatically ineffective because a experimental substance becomes a liquid or solid? That wouldn't make sense. If it were so, then absolute zero wouldn't be the number we know it as. At the closest scientists have got to absolute zero, NOTHING is in gas form. At the same time, if you were to heat something up to unimaginable temperatures, it would have to be a gas or above that, like the opposite of a Bose-Einstein condensate.But the Big Bang defies laws of physics, and enters something I can't seem to grasp. Here is how I see it: the Big Bang defies the laws that make up the universe, so obviously there is a point where laws don't count. I've seen history programs where they talk about ancient prophesies covering them selves up with vague or weak points. I wouldn't be surprised if this was considered one of them.Meh, as you all can prolly tell, I don't believe in the BB theory, I was merely offering a bit of information to see what kind of feed-back I could get. (Looking through, I see more feedback on what defines "space" than things on BB.)Edited by Lyston, : Didn't finish.

I loled. Learn what defines a Nazi, understand that it not a substitute to 'focused', and that Nazi is merely a follower of Hitler, and that MOST Nazis didn't know about all the corrupt and evil things he did. Every military vet of Nazi Germany I know never knew about the Holocaust until after the war.There, that's your off-topic fix of the day. Learn what a Nazi is, then we can discuss space, then we can return on topic, yes?