Big Bang's whereabouts

Hi clear blue, the BB happened all over our observable piece of universe simultaneously, hence also right where we are! This is because the observable universe itself was almost just a mathematical point some 13.7 billion years ago.

We would have seen the events of the BB in all directions, if it was not for a 'fog' that obscured our view, because the universe was opaque for the first 350 thousand years or so. At that time the universe became transparent and we can see the light as it emerged from that fog in all directions. It is called the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and tells us a lot of how the universe was at that time.

If you read any of the many FAQs on cosmology on the web, you'll quickly get the hang of thinking about the BB in this way. It is a bit mind-bending, but then, the universe is the biggest thing we know...

Jorrie

Jorrie, isn't it true that before the big bang there was no universe as we understand it and the big bang event was from a singularity?

Also it was only after the big bang that space and time existed?

I'm intrigued to try to understand what was there before the big bang event, if anything?

John

Hi John. We don't know what was before the BB. It may possibly be a pre-existing universe that contracted and was 'recycled' by the BB (a big bounce, in this case).

Remember that a singularity here does not necessarily mean a singular point. It may mean an infinitely large space with infinite density. Scientists tend to call any form of infinity a singularity, simply because the math breaks down there. In such a case, 'contracted' in my opening paragraph means that the size (which was infinite) never changed, just the density increased without limit until some BB resulted and forced the density to decrease again.

If this is so, the 'expansion of the universe' is a bit of a misnomer - it should simply be the 'decrease of density', but that hasn't got a nice 'ring' to it, does it? In any case, our observable piece of universe must have been close to a point before the bounce happened.

Jorrie

Hi Jorrie,

I guess I have a bit of a hangup on the concept of infinite density. My problem probably comes from my viewpoint that if we "crush" all the matter of all the atoms in the universe ever tighter into a single point, then I would expect that the physical limitation of that individual "particles" (neutrons, protons, etc.) would prevent further condensation of the mass. I suppose if all these "particles" are energy then perhaps they might combine somehow, but how? What am I missing here?

Hi Guest, you asked: "I suppose if all these "particles" are energy then perhaps they might combine somehow, but how? What am I missing here?"

Most physicists actually hope there is no infinite density of matter and that something like you described will happen. This is the domain of quantum physics/gravity/cosmology. Unfortunately, no self-consistent theory has yet emerged, but there are many contenders...

Jorrie

My personal favorite theory is that the BB was the result of the collision of two other extra-dimensional universes.

No factual basis - I just like it.

Funny you said that! I think about 7 years ago, I saw a documentary on that same subject. I changed my whole way of thinking about the 'Multi-verse'! Now I hear that that philosophy has changed to 'The Big x' (x= The choice is yours!) I am once again at a complete loss! Jorrie seems to have his finger on the pulse so I keep an eye on him and his theories!

If the BB started not in one place but everywhere at the same time, I think Jorrie referred to it as the Balloon concept,( only the expansion bit) I can visualise that but I can also visualise two balloons (with a charge) brushing past each other causing a burst of energy and hence our own 'verse'! From what I have read, (mainly Universe based) my ideas were stuck on a BB! Why has the Multi-verse fallen out of favour? Were there too many loopholes? And do you think that one day, man will see the beginning, be it a BB or a molecule on a giants wort?

Hmmmmm so does this mean that Hubble's constant which refers to the red shift being related to distance to other objects in the universe (I think) is wrong?

If every other object in the universe is moving away from us, then isn't the conclusion that we are all moving away from a point in space?

Similar to us all being on the surface of an expanding balloon, this is what I learnt in the 60s.... but back then the steady state and the oscillating universe theories were around, so things must have changed...?

John.

Hi John. "If every other object in the universe is moving away from us, then isn't the conclusion that we are all moving away from a point in space?"

Then isn't the conclusion rather: we are at that point in space? Every other observer anywhere in space will however come to the same conclusion.

The 'multi-verse' is a possibility, but we may never know, so why worry?

Jorrie

We will eventually get to the bottom of the origin of the universe. And it won't look at all like anything we're currently considering. We're still waiting for some modern Isaac Newton to invent the new calculus.

Hi Jorrie,

BB is the theory that is accepted today. As I know, at Brookhaven, they try to reproduce

a small part of it, hoping that we'll have a bit better understanding.

So….some 13.7 billion years ago. It happened! A massive burst of energy.

That propagates in all directions. At what speed? Light speed? I remember reading, a long time ago, that gravitational waves are propagating at a higher speed than light (we are allowed to talk energy - matter, aren't we?).

But here we are, 13.7 billion years later, in the location where we are, somewhere on a sphere with that radius. IF the light traveled at the same speed we wouldn't see anything, for the next 350,000 years. So, only if the BB lasted for more than 350,000 years we would be able the see something.

Theories….

Hi indel, you wrote: "That propagates in all directions. At what speed? Light speed? I remember reading, a long time ago, that gravitational waves are propagating at a higher speed than light "

Light and gravitational waves move through space at the speed of light. As 'space expands', it separates particles of matter at rates that could have been far greater than what the speed of light dictates. Because those particles do not have to move through space, it is not 'forbidden' by nature.

"But here we are, 13.7 billion years later, in the location where we are, somewhere on a sphere with that radius. IF the light traveled at the same speed we wouldn't see anything, for the next 350,000 years. So, only if the BB lasted for more than 350,000 years we would be able the see something."

This makes no sense if you consider what I've said above. You agree?

Jorrie

PS: If still in doubt, take a peek at what I wrote on my website, particularly the download from: Cosmology Introduction. It's written for Engineers.

Also, Jorrie, people tend to talk about the "sphere" of the Universe. To my knowledge, no one knows what shape the Universe has, or even if we can ever "see" more than a small fraction of the Universe. For all we know, we (our galaxy) could be spilling out of a cornucopia into ever increasing space and falling density, and the BB could have been at the inside tip of the cornucopia, much like someone blowing into a hunter's horn, which continues to gush forth energy , matter and space.

Thank you for the bibliographic reference "Cosmology for dummies….sorry, for engineers". After reading it, you see, I am not, yet, a believer. The same old tricks like duality corpuscul - wave, the trinity father, son, and holy spirit (I apologize to the religious people), now an infinite size universe, with an infinite density but defined, according to you, a mathematical point, adimensional. By the way, what happened to the good old math fractions like infinity upon zero? And that density pulsing between infinity and…infinity! And that we are in the center of an expansion that doesn't happen (here I must say, the theory works: More immobile I am, more my belly grows). Ah, we use them to concoct our explanations.

It happened to be you to respond to clear blue. I would manifest my skepticism in the modern physics theories to anybody else, so don't take it personally. Thank you for your efforts.

Huh?

Can you name a straight visible line that occurs naturally?

Actually, not offhand. I was thinking more along the "lines" of the female body.

Hi Jorrie,

I know this question is off-topic for this particular thread but I'm hoping you might supply some insights for me.

"When does taking one thing away give you more than what you started with? When quantum mechanics gets involved.

Researchers have shown that removing a photon from a laser beam can lead to it containing more photons than it had before^" (from "Quirky qualities of Quantum Optics" thread).

As I mentioned on that thread, single photons have apparently exihibited the same refractance patterns as a continuous beam in the double slit experiment.

My question is, how can one emit a single photon? For that matter how can one emit any specific number of photons? This one really puzzles me.

Regards,

-John

Kodswhallop?

Mr Gee writes: "The center of the universe we can not directly observe first because it is beyond our sphere of observation... "

But Mr Gee, we are at the exact center of our observable universe! So the center is not 'missing' and we can obviously observe it. More seriously, where is the center of the surface of the Earth? Where is the center of an infinite space?

BTW, the dark matter is not 'missing'. It is all around us, inside our Galaxy and inside your room, right now! Just very hard to detect.

"So, now you have a possible explanation of the missing center, the missing dark matter, the just barely gravitationally unbounded conditions of local space time and you heard it first - right here on CR4..."

I would really recommend studying cosmology a bit more before giving such 'authoritative explanations' here on CR4...

Jorrie

Like I said, "Kodswhallop."

OK, so a recap. the universe was created by a big bang, (or maybe more?) or it could have been created by two (or more) colliding universes which in turn were created by a big bang, (or maybe more) or they could have been created by two (or more) colliding universes which in turn...

Sounds a bit silly to me, (But its what they teach in schools as fact)

By the way are you not forgetting something? "The conservation of energy"! Energy can be neither created our destroyed! So where did the Energy come from?

Rolling right back to the very beginning where it all kicked off, there were no universes. Where was the energy? Where did it come from? There was nothing then all of a sudden there was enough energy to create a universe, How?

How about this for a theory, GOD

If you try adding God to your theories and equations maybe you'll get a definite answer, no more theories.

Hi Guest, you wrote: "There was nothing then all of a sudden there was enough energy to create a universe, How?"

The best theory we have is that the total energy is zero. I suppose the theological view may be that God now has negative energy and the Universe positive energy, for a net energy of zero. The theoretical view is that the the 'false vacuum' now has negative energy. Both sounds like a good explanation, but neither sounds like "a definite answer" to me.

Jorrie

I honestly do know a bit about cosmology. Clear Blues original question is quite good although he is not the first person to ask this question. Hubble, the scientist for whom the telescope is named is famous for his pioneering work trying to answer this exact question. The 'Standard Candle' - stars of known luminescence is the tool he used to attempt this. He was the first to postulate an expanding universe because that is the result indicated by his detailed observations.

Merchand was a Catholic scientist who first postulated a big bang origin of the universe based in part on Hubble's work and his own calculations based on red shift of light received from distant galaxies. The Pope at the time was delighted because he felt this theory supported creationism.

When radio astronomy first began (Bell Labs) it was not clear what was the source of the microwave band radiation that seemed to come equally from every where. Now days very sophisticated methods of spectral and waveform analysis (quadra-pole moment) are used to filter general micro-wave background radiation from various sources from that which is presently assumed to have come from the big bang.

Hubble's later work still based on standard candle and red shift of the spectra of light indicated that the average amount of red shift was varying over cosmological time. This data, confirmed by the observations of many others, indicates that there has been variation in the rate of expansion of the universe and that is difficult to explain.

One explanation that has been put forward is that there is matter that is difficult to observe i.e. 'dark matter'. Well people have been diligently searching for dark matter and occasionally announcing they have 'found' it. But, there is presently no widespread acceptance of any observations of dark matter. There is only widespread agreement that the amount of matter needed to explain the red-shifting observed is greater than the amount we do observe. You seem to be among those who 'sense' dark matter all around us, so I am a bit curious, what method do you use?

These scientists observations relating to expansion are closely related to the other major cosmological question which deals with the 'fate' of the universe. If the average mass density of the universe above a certain value then the universe is calculated to collapse upon itself due to mass attraction. If the average mass density is above that value then the universe will expand forever unless mass itself 'dissolves' due to a lack of binding energy.

The odd thing about this topic in cosmology is that the present day observed average mass density of the universe is very very near the calculated value for closure. If that is a coincidence it is an odd one.

My theory covers this in that I suppose that the portion of the universe nearest the original colossal bang had the highest average mass density some of it was too dense to achieve escape velocity. Therefor it collapsed upon itself and then radiatively evaporated. This actually seems to be what the black holes we presently observe do so it is not speculation based on what I "want" a black hole to do.

This theory of mine explains all the observed data of which I am aware and leaves none out. It does mean that our assumption that mass/energy can not be created or destroyed is not true - but, that is only an assumption and since both matter and energy do appear to exist it seems to me to be a pretty dumb "law" to stake your professional reputation on.

To return to Clear Blue's original question - why can't we find the center of the universe the answer appears to be that the universe is just too big. The center of our galaxy is now known and our position relative to it is also known so, if the universe was the size of our galaxy which was the prevailing opinion before Hubble's work we would be able to use triangulation of a sort, not that unlike the type Clear Blue proposes to find the center.

In the case of the universe, the only reason these methods do not appear to work is that the universe is just too big. Even using background micro-wave radiation filtered for big bang origin we can not infer any particular direction for the place where the big bang happened. Which says to me that there is not enough variation in mass density, stellar velocity, or remnant radiant energy to even hazard a guess as to the 'compass heading' of our origins. That is a very surprising result. Which is why I gave honest praise for his question. As you have observed offering an opinion, expert or otherwise, is rather easy to do. But, asking a good question is the process that drives the engine of scientific progress.

Sincerely,

Mr. Gee

Hi Mr Gee, you say: "I honestly do know a bit about cosmology." and I will not dispute that.

However, when you say this: "The odd thing about this topic in cosmology is that the present day observed average mass density of the universe is very very near the calculated value for closure...", it creates an impression of 'incomplete knowledge'.

The average mass density of the universe, including dark matter, is only around 27% of the calculated value for closure. The other ~73% is made up of 'dark energy', which one should not really call 'matter'. It may not even exist at all, i.e., there may be other ways to explain the accelerating expansion.

You asked: "You seem to be among those who 'sense' dark matter all around us, so I am a bit curious, what method do you use?"

How about the 'flat' rotation curve of the outer parts of our own Galaxy, of which we are part?

Lastly, your: "Even using background micro-wave radiation filtered for big bang origin we can not infer any particular direction for the place where the big bang happened." is not quite true. We infer that it happened everywhere that we could see, because that radiation is the 'smoke' of the BB.

My advice to aspiring "new theory of cosmology" candidates is as always: until you understand standard cosmology very well, you are wasting your time trying to 'improve' on it.

Jorrie

Jorrie

You have the most amusing style. The first line of your reply states you will not dispute my knowledge of cosmology and yet your second line quotes me and adds a comment that clearly indicates that you DO dispute my knowledge of the subject!

The fact that your right and I did make a slight misstatement in the line you quoted makes me accept and appreciate your contributions even if you are a rather critical critic.

You are correct. The present day average mass density of the observable universe is approximately 27% of the average mass density required for a closed universe. Therefor based on escape velocity calculations we are presently part of an open universe that is expanding at an ever increasing rate and should therefor eventually dissipate.

The problem this causes for big bang theory is that if you iteratively regress the calculation of the Freidmann equation for preceding epochs you arrive at the time of the big bang with too little bang. The bang energy expressed in that bang would result in a mass-density mass-velocity combination that would have closed in upon itself due to its internal mass attraction long ago. Or, you can make another set of state of being assumptions that give enough velocity but in that case you do not end up with the average mass-density we actually observe.

Thus the basic self-check of working a problem backwards and then forwards does not work and this indicates an error of some sort is present in the model.

One possible explanation is that the bang theory is wrong and this proves it. Some researchers have concluded this and gone chasing after steadily expanding state theories or continuous spontaneous creation theories or tied themselves in stringy knot theories. I don't like that brier patch so I won't spend any more time criticizing them thar wilily wabbits.

Hubble discovered the universe was expanding and Marchand suggested a big bang would do it and I think they are right and so do many - perhaps most others.

In looking for a sensible way to address the basic error in the Freidmann big bang calculation many cosmologists have looked at the spectral red-shift data as a way of calibrating the cosmos. The first problem here is that there is a great deal of motion going on and not all of it is red-shift motion. There is a noticeable amount of blue-shifted motion too. So, a lot of time weighted averaging is needed in order to estimate the expansion rate which is essential to getting a good answer.

Next, there is very very good evidence, beginning with Hubble's later work and supported by many others that the rate of expansion of the universe has not been uniform over time and that the rate of expansion was slower long ago.

The clear and obvious implication of that observation is that there was more mass in the universe long ago than there is presently but that idea bothers some scientists because over time the principles of conservation of mass and energy that were once the hypothesis of famous researchers like Sir Isaac Newton have become 'laws' that can not be questioned no matter what the data says.

Well, we know mass is not conserved in nuclear reactions and we know nuclear reactions are common in cosmology. The relative balance of mass and energy derived by Einstein has been rigorously tested and found to confirm his hypothesis about the conversion of mass to energy in fission.

Even in this laboratory case the energy 'created' is observed to radiate and dissipate and is not generally observed to reversibly return to mass and certainly does not do so spontaneously under normal conditions.

In addition to this obvious case there is a great deal of black-hole radiation data that shows a decreasing period for the radiation cycle. This data has lead Hawkins and others including myself to conclude that black holes are transient and not cyclic and that they radiatively evaporate. This conclusion accounts for the otherwise puzzling lack of black holes. They are rare and other than evaporation there is no particularly good reason why they should be.

So much for dark matter and vacuum energy. These concepts were put forward primarily to address the problems in the Freidmann equation calculations and they have been very problematic for those who spend time and effort seeking things that don't exist.

The solution that I am proposing creates a new set of problems in that the amount of mass/energy in can no longer be assumed to be constant. Instead it must be assumed to be continuously decreasing at a variable rate which is dependent upon the very parameters contained in the equations being solved.

In terms of Newtonian calculus this means that there is no solution possible, which is in some sense true. There is no single correct solution. However, there should be a iterative parametric regression that gives a best fit for the data. The number of elements in the solution set of this model would be essentially infinite like most Venn diagram type solution sets but the solution that also gives a good match for the observed average red-shift data should be much more narrowly defined than any big bang model presently being offered.

The concept of an inflationary big or colossal bang has become a part of classic big bang theory for a long time now. This concept comes from working the Freidmann equation from the other direction. If you have a bang and the matter that condenses from the bang can not travel faster than the speed of light then the maximum velocity of the mass is limited and so is the maximum size of the universe and those maximum universes are all closed and closed a long time ago which does not appear to be the case for our universe.

Thus, there is an intrinsic problem with a big bang as the source for the universe we now observe in that no matter what you feel about missing mass you still need a bang so big that the energy of it expands faster than the speed of light for a very short period of time at the very beginning.

If the initial assumptions of model I propose are plugged into these equations then there would be an gross increase in the energy of the bang - hence the colossal bang name - and the hyper-inflationary period would be longer yielding a greater net initial average velocity and a very much larger and more massive universe at the transparency temperature.

This hyper-inflationary event is problematic for some people because they have a strong tendency to visualize the big bang as radiating light. This is not the case. The earliest part of the big bang was a purely thermal event that did not emit any light until the temperature of the event cooled enough for matter to begin to condense out. Thus, the constraint that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light still holds because thermal energy of the bang did not 'travel' in space and time it actually created space and time, but only after it 'expanded' and cooled enough for those fields or concepts to have any meaning.

When it did expand and cool enough to emit light it started emitting only the very highest energy shortest wave-length light there ever was in incredible quantities. This light is currently believed to be red-shifted all the way down to the micro-wave frequency spectrum which the COBE satellite measures and thus it has become the source of the data from which we must first extract the galaxies micro-wave emissions and then the cosmic dust emissions.

What is left is then believed to remain from the big bang, but it does not clearly show the direction in which we have come as since we left ground zero with a biggish possibly colossal hyper-inflationary bang umpteen billion years ago.

As for your concern about me wasting my time attempting to better understand and explain our universe, I acknowledge you may be right, but, I labor on in the hope you are not. In any case, it is my time, so I if I fritter some of it away on cosmology, at least I didn't engage in either politics or religion, which are rumored to be even worse vices...

Sincerely,

Mr. Gee

Hi Mr. Gee.

I did not take issue with your actual knowledge; just with the way you represent it here. Several new remarks (to which I will shortly get) indicate one of two things: either you do not understand mainstream cosmology or you are misrepresenting it here for some reason. Some examples:

" The problem this causes for big bang theory is that if you iteratively regress the calculation of the Freidmann equation for preceding epochs you arrive at the time of the big bang with too little bang."

The Friedmann equation handles the epochs from the present to just after inflation perfectly well. What does "too little bang" mean?

" Or, you can make another set of state of being assumptions that give enough velocity but in that case you do not end up with the average mass-density we actually observe."

Can you show the calculations to support this assertion?

" In looking for a sensible way to address the basic error in the Freidmann big bang calculation many cosmologists have looked at the spectral red-shift data as a way of calibrating the cosmos."

Basic error? What error?

" Next, there is very very good evidence, beginning with Hubble's later work and supported by many others that the rate of expansion of the universe has not been uniform over time and that the rate of expansion was slower long ago."

Actually, the expansion rate of the universe was also very, very much faster long ago! The expansion rate (da/dt) slowed down for about 5 billion years, and then remained more or less steady for some 4 billion years and has only been increasing slightly for the last 5 billion years or so. If one considers the Hubble parameter H as the measure of expansion rate, then the rate has only decreased so far and it may eventually become constant.

" The clear and obvious implication of that observation is that there was more mass in the universe long ago than there is presently …"

It is only the mass density that has gone down over time, not the actual mass. Granted, some mass has been converted to radiation, but that is a very, very tiny fraction of the actual mass. This conversion has nothing to do with the expansion rate.

Maybe this is enough evidence to justify me being "a rather critical critic". I have no problem with anyone having a personal theory of cosmology, as long as they represent mainstream cosmology correctly.

Actually, I have started a CR4 Blog thread on "Alternative Cosmologies". Maybe you should rather state your theory there. At least it would then not be confused with mainstream cosmology and students happening to pass by here would not be confused.

Regards, Jorrie

Hi Clear Blue... If we try to find the point where the BB happened by the directions of the movement of all the galaxies in the Universe we could come to a conclusion that this point must be "here" (on Earth), because all the galaxies (around us) apparently are moving away from us... Of course, this doesn't mean that the Earth is located on (or close) to the point that the BB happened (about 14 billion years ago)... If we were standing anywhere in the Universe we would observe, exactly, the same thing... So, the truth is that the galaxies are not moving away from us (specificaly)... They are moving away from each other (in general), e.g. anyone of the galaxies is departed from all the others... As a good way to perceive this difficult issue I give you a very common example (which is mentioned in many books): Imagine a balloon and some spots which are pointed all over its surphase... If the balloon is inflated we see that the distance between all these spots is increasing... So, concerning a spot (and I mean any of the spots), all the other spots (around it) seems to move away from this spot... In this example the "centre" of the inflation is not "located" somewhere on the surphase of the balloon... In fact, there isn't any centre of the inflation (or you could say that the centre of the inflation is located on the centre of the sphere=balloon)... Although the surphase of a balloon is a "2-dimensional" space we can correspond it to the "3-dimensional" space of our Universe... In the "balloon example" the departure of all the spots (relative to all the other spots) is happenned due to the inflation of the balloon ("2-dimensional" space) itself... In our Universe the departure of all the spots - i.e. galaxies - (relative to all the other spots - i.e. galaxies-) is happenned due to the inflation of the Universe ("3-dimensional" space) itself... I hope that this example will help...

Hi George.

You wrote: "Of course, this doesn't mean that the Earth is located on (or close) to the point that the BB happened ..."

But George, we are exactly where the BB happened, and so are all other points in our universe....

Jorrie

Of course, I agree Jorrie... I just wanted to point out that someone could come to a false conclusion by the observation of all the other objects in the Universe (which are moving away from us)... Better to say that not only the Earth is located at the BB location... Everything in our Universe is located too... Afterall, the BB produced the space-time pedestal itself... (It was a BB of "energy, space & time")... Every point of our space was "just there" in the very first moment of the BB, although all these points were so tightly close to each other... And now, of course, all these points are, simply, spreaded out in huge distances (of billions light years) as the space was extended... (I prefer to consider that, in the begining of the space (BB), our space was something like a "dense & small 3-dimensional hypersphere" which was inflated rapidly... nowadays this "hypersphere" has become extremely huge and its "surphase" (our 3-dimensional space) looks like to be "flat"... A Universe which was of an infinite size from its begining (BB) as you proposed in a previous post, is something difficult to cosdider... How a "space of an infinite size" (i.e. "hyperplane") can be created in a moment from nothing???... On the other hand, a gradually expanded "hypersphere" makes sense... What's your opinion???...)

Hi George. You wrote: "I prefer to consider that, in the begining of the space (BB), our space was something like a " dense & small 3-dimensional hypersphere" which was inflated rapidly."

I guess you meant "dense & small 4-dimensional hypersphere". I also prefer this view and it is actually the geometry slightly favored by current observations, i.e., a universe that is 'just closed'. But, what we prefer and what nature does may have little in common…

Jorrie

Ah, yes... mistake... I should say "4-dimensional hypersphere"... But it would be better to say: "our (3-dimensional) space is the surphase of a "4-dimensional hypersphere"..."

The palaeontologist then asks a stupid question: Is there a way to measure the changing red shifts of two stars for which we know the location and triangulate back toward a common point?

Hi Jim, you asked: "Is there a way to measure the changing red shifts of two stars for which we know the location and triangulate back toward a common point?"

Yes, and we are at that common point! The redshift only measures the radial component, but at large distances the radial component of the expansion is so large that it must swamp all transverse (a.k.a. peculiar) velocity components.

See, proof that we are at the center of the universe. But as said before, observers in a faraway galaxy will come to the same conclusion. This is the crux of the matter. The BB point is everywhere...

Jorrie

Hello Jorrie,

If we assume the expanding balloon theory where we, and everything else, galaxies, etc. are on such a surface, then our observable universe is, by definition, limited by the curvature of the balloon, right?

Seems to me like since the BB must have occurred inside the balloon, at its exact center, and is what is what is driving the universe's expansion, and we're limited to observation of events on that curved surface, then consequently, there is no way we can possibly observe the BB (center of the balloon), or, for that matter, anything beneath the surface..

IMHO no telescope can "see" beneath the surface (the balloon) that we're on. For that matter, everything(?) below the surface is unobservable, at least with our seemingly limited technology.

I do realize that as we go farther and farther back (telescopically), the balloon get's correspondingly smaller, but even so, we still cannot see what's inside the balloon.

To get there requires observation into another dimension.

Am I missing something?

-John

No. Look down at your feet. Start digging, keep digging, and eventually you'll come to the conclusion that China is actually the center of the Universe!!!

Johnjohn, the trick is to eventually leave the balloon model behind in favor of not a 2-D surface, but a 3-D surface. Space, as it expands, is not a two dimensional object - we're actually expanding in all three dimensions. If you can imagine that, then you're way ahead of most of us, and you can pass the balloon off to some screaming brat.

Hi vermin,

I tried that digging thing but gravity kept holding me back!

It seems easy enough to visualize all of us'ns on a 2-D surface expanding within a 3-D coordinate system. Latitude (x) and longitude (y) aside, how do I describe "z" to my grandkids who seem to be awe struck at my gesticulations and gyrations? They don't buy the China thing anyway (but my dogs do).

The screaming brats will get it faster than most of us who came before them.

Anyway, I think we need to stand back and take another look at this "space-time fabric model". Tell me, vermin, how do we leave the balloon model behind?

If the balloon model has any validity, and it does seem to fit the expansion thing quite well, then are you suggesting that the surface of the fabric goes through the center? Maybe like a mobius sphere (not to be confused with a Klein bottle)?

Help me out, I'm drowning!

Good answer and well said vermin.

So, if I tear out that south wall of the dining room I will have "created" more space, right?

Anyway, you said "First, there is no surface!!!"

You seem pretty certain of that. Perhaps, just maybe, we are sort of floating on a sea of dark matter, like ships on a sea of water. Gravity waves may just be undulations of the "sea".

If we could measure the greatest depth of the sea (pass me a hit..... thanks) would it be the distance to the BB?

Also, you said "just before the BB, this something pops into existence and BLAM!!!" Unfortunately, at this point, we get into pure philosophy because physics slams into the wall of a singularity! "[J]ust before the BB" is where God lives, and that, my friend, is indisputable.

"...where God lives, and that, my friend, is indisputable..." - More like, Immeasurable.

The whole point of singularity is that of being a wall. The end of rational thought, concerning the empirical, measurable form of existence.

Take the speed of light. The velocity is given. 330k Km/s. Does anything there to bare testimony to that speed? No. Why?

When asked in 1924 (At the opening of the Haifa Technion) Einstein was quoted to say: "...No, not even light can travel at the speed of light...". It was then taken as a joke, but basically it's true because it's a sort of singularity in the sense that it's the edge of the describable nature.

Besides:

If you take time and you take space as constituents of movement, action, work, sort of the stage upon which energy performs, then, at the singular point "before" the Big Bang, at the point where space was not yet "spread" in it's "physical" dimensions X,Y,Z, there was no 'space' for time to act or appear, or at least be apparent for any practical reason. And vice versa. With no movement across time and space, the terms of action, work, energy, time, space have no inter-relation, the cannot interact in any meaningful way, thus, they are meaningless.

- Time is a notion we created for our own understanding and grasp of processes across space.

- Space is a notion we created for our own understanding and grasp of processes across time.

Today we combine them into one unified entity - Timespace, because, basically they are inseparable, if they are to have any meaningful use.

There is no real problem grasping an infinitely small space - the electron is one, and we have a blast with it for some hundred and fifty years of electronics, not to mention chemistry and QM in general.

Hi furry friend,

" Time is a notion we created for our own understanding and grasp of processes across space.

- Space is a notion we created for our own understanding and grasp of processes across time."

Thank you for saying that. I alluded to it in an earlier thread on another topic but you made the point quite well (things that I thought but never said clearly).

You said "There is no real problem grasping an infinitely small space".

Only if we give it substance, i.e., spacial dimensions! Whether it has timespace characteristics is yet to be "seen", but as you say, we have certainly utilized it quite well.

-John

Not completely. We also have time - electric charge to measure current. OK ok in order to have current you need motion of charge in space time. BUT, if you stretch your neck some you will see my point anyway.

Some of us also spend at least some of our time measuring changes in heat over time so there is that thermal thing going on as well which can actually flow without a flow of mass. Very interesting - new ways to observe the passage of time. My personal favorite is sunbathing - :-)

Thermal Changes or "temperature" if you like, is a notion we created to indicate for particle jitter, or erratic velocity we may call "Heat".

"Cold" is simply that lack of it. The coldest point, absolute zero, is where particles have zero such velocity.

Even in everyday slang, "Freeze" means lack of movement, and I'd say for a very good reason.

No, you'd just move the location of what was your South wall to another location in space.

More and more physicists are getting on the "dark matter is virtual particles" band-wagon. I don't think we expanded out into a sea of virtual particles, because for vast numbers of virtual particles to exist, there most be space within which they exist - and as stated, space didn't exist before the BB.

It's also where pixies, elves, and Santa Claus live!!!

P.S. The Easter Bunny says hi!

Dang vermin,

Now the wife's in an uproar! Her favorite painting was on that wall. BTW, do you think that south wall was actually the north wall of my living room? Maybe I should have torn it down instead. Actually, if I had torn them both down, maybe I would have "created" space?

"for vast numbers of virtual particles to exist, there most be space within which they exist"

Careful here vermin. You're assuming (I think) that dark matter/energy must obey the same time-space laws as "ordinary" matter. Since we haven't yet detected it we should approach the entire concept with a very open mind.

What happens when a "space" particle meets an "anti-space" particle? Do they annihilate or does something else maybe happen? Perhaps space is both a wave, a particle, and then some totally new entity like maybe a uni-pole! Who would'a thunk it?

Man, I need a drink!

You and me both! Cheers!

Virtual particles are considered to always be created in pairs - the particle and its anti-matter opposite. They exist for only about 10^-20 to 10^-30 seconds or much less before they attract each other and go out of existence. However, space is supposed to be very full of these little short-timers. As I said, this idea is "gaining" acceptance as dark matter, not proved. By the way have you Goggled or Wikipedia-ed "Boltzmann Brains" yet?

There's a whole field of quantum mechanics devoted to the study of the structure of space. Very interesting. It's a little like looking at dirt. You and I see dirt, but to the biologist, the geologist, and the soil engineer, there a whole nu-ther world down there. Just another analogy (forgive me!)

Hi John. You wrote: "To get there [the center of the balloon] requires observation into another dimension."

True, if the cosmos is a 4-d hypersphere. Although as you also said: "I do realize that as we go farther and farther back (telescopically), the balloon gets correspondingly smaller, but even so, we still cannot see what's inside the balloon."

If we could observe all the way back to t=0, the singular spot making up our observable universe would be the inside and the outside, I guess! Weird, because the singular spot would look like a membrane all around us. More proof that we are truly the center of our universe!

Jorrie

Hi Chaps,

Lets get the I'm a bit dim about the big bang out of the way "yes I am"

If the big bang was a sudden expansion resulting from a instantaneaous burst of energy, then shureley in a high or even non gravitation location or condition the force should be equal in all areas and in all directions.

Would this not make it possible that the bang is still occuring and our view is not looking in at the bang but out at the constantly changing result?

I guess as Jorry says we are at the centre ! ! !

Sirs,

With all due respect, I am often amazed by the knowledge and expertise displayed here on this web site and in postings. However, when discussions turn this route, it is irritating.

Understandably human nature and the intellect starves for answers and solutions to the unknown and depending on an individuals ego, convincing oneself that they have found the best "guess" will suffice.

Discussion is great, and sometimes the only way solutions/answers are found, but the truth is science should require us to satisfy senses not pet peeves and egos prior to declaring gospel.

Let's concentrate on getting out there. How can we expect to discover the origins of our universe now, if we are only a few hundred years removed from the main stream scientist opinion the world was flat and a few decades removed from only getting people to the moon once?

We are children in a sand box and until we put the sand in our mouths, get it under our fingernails and smell what the cat left in the box...it is still irritating.

At this point, hands down, I have to give the creationist the best "guess".

It appears you are irritated by logic and reasoning but not by superstition, magic, or blind faith... hardly consistent.

The scientific discussion here in regards to the outer-dimensional unknowns and speed of light travels into triangular points of view to see the cornicopia of the fabrication of our solar system that happened trillions of light years ago is no more knowledgable and proven as creationism, in my opinion.

If humankind had a bit more to go on in regards to what is really out there, etc. (i.e. discover/develop a worm hole) I would have an easier time with the validity/seriousness of discussions on this topic.

I have included pictures and some text from an email that is going around. Food for thought.

BEYOND OUR SUN

ANTARES IS THE 15TH BRIGHTEST STAR IN THE SKY. IT IS MORE THAN 1000 LIGHT YEARS AWAY.

This is a hubble telescope ultra deep field infrared view of coutless "entire Galaxies billions of light years away.

Below is a close up of one of the darkest regions of the photo above.

Man, there are several versions of the 'Turbo Encabulator' rap floating around.

This is by far, the best.

Thanks for the link.

Someone in Rockwell must have been on acid, producing this.

For those who missed it. Here

In the old days, pre 60s, this was called double-talk. And there were masters that could spout this stuff on the fly, usually on the streets of New York to sell stuff to the out-of-town rubes. Eventually, these old guys made the late night talk show circuit with people like Johnny Carson. They'd come on and talk their talk, crack up the audience, and everyone was amazed!

These old videos are the remnant of the dying bread of double-talkers.

They'd come on and talk their talk, crack up the audience, and everyone was amazed!

These old videos are the remnant of the dying bread of double-talkers.

Yup..how we all miss Tony Blair...

Besides, there are a whole bunch of people trying to figure out how to get us out there. But until they come up with something, we're pretty much stuck right here. Like, know what I mean?

Jorrie,

Thanks for the concise answer. That is exactly what I wanted to know.

In order to find out where the BB "center" is, we need to know the speed and vector compare to such point. We maybe able to do that if we can go to a few different solar system/galaxy to triangulate their speed and vector. As long as we're in our own solar system, our reference point has no speed/velocity. Also whatever we measure/observe is a "few" light years ago. We can calculate/guess where they're "now" but that would have lots of error.

Don't kill me if I made myself a total idiot.

Pineapple

We won't kill you, but have some Kodswhallop.

You're certainly not a total idiot Guest, no more so than most of us. However, there are some among the CR4 posters that seem to be just a little more informed. That said, I think you are looking at the BB in 3-space as if you can say, "yes", I'm here so therefore "you" (BB) must be over there somewhere.

I know vermin screeches his nails on that damn chalkboard every time someone mentions the "balloon" model, but I'll bring it up anyway: If you're on the surface of the ocean (2-D space in a 3-D universe), where do you triangulate to?

Is there a better way to explain the impossibility of triangulation in this situation other that that you, me, (thanks Jorrie, I think(?) I get it), and everything else is at the exact center and therefore what do I triangulate to?

Screech!!!

This is actually a really good point... If space existed before the Big Bang, and all this matter and energy flew out to fill this space, then we most certainly could check out how different celestial bodies were moving and deduce the point in the pre-existing space where we all came from!

The fact that this doesn't work is evidence that space didn't exist before the Big Bang, and that it is expanding out in roughly all different directions with everything else. No pre-space, no point of reference!!!

What is the explanation for all the planets, suns and moons being nearly perfectly round?

What conditions are hypothesized to explain this phenomenon in the explosion/formation that allowed for that kind of consistancy?

I assume that the unknown is really more irritating than the theories or discussions. I think the coffe I was drinking yesterday was decaff or something.

Yes but,

Spherocity is the norm, and yes, omnidir...umm, pressure probably had something to do with it too. I think maybe the pressure and density may have some definite relationship as well. However! You left out the key factor my friend- rotation!

Yes, rotation, rotation, rotation. It's everywhere isn't it? What caused it? What, perchance, caused this primordial curvilinear motion? As we talked about in an earlier thread, rotation seems to be at the center of everything, time, matter, mass, space, etc. Why didn't the primordial matter from the BB simply just take off linearly? Why did it just sort of curl around on itself and create conditions for these stupid questions I'm asking?

Spherocity, plain and simply, is caused by rotation! All those other wordy factors you, quite correctly, mentioned, are just spokes in the wheel. Get it? A wheel. A wheel rotates!

Of course a spheroid is the most logical object such that all points on its outermost boundary are caused by some causative event at its center. The boundaries of the BB, shortly after inception (relatively, of course) described a spheroid I suppose. But why then did it (suddenly- again relatively) begin to rotate?

The problem with determining this is that we're stuck, as we always have been, with this "everything's rotating!" syndrome. We, in our infant wisdom can't fathom a situation (universe) that could have occurred without it. Now hold on just a minute Yuval. I can already foresee a million arguments forming in your fertile mind. Take a deep breath- first assume a downward dog stance, relax, now upward dog. Good!

The universe (our universe) formed as it did, and the problem is, we are too arrogant to realize that perhaps other conditions might have prevailed. Hold on, I think I can surmise the argument that you're forming. You're probably(?) suggesting that we are indeed stuck with this baby (our rotating time-space universe) and we should simply deal with it as it is. But then, if we're really searching for the BB's whereabouts we should be open to some really, really weird alternatives. Besides, if a different primordial scenario had happened, you and I might not be interacting in such a circular fashion.

Most, that being just cautious, practically all celestial phenomena are spinning in one way or another, due to imperfection in axial and planar symmetry in the formation of each phenomenon:

Imagine a cloud of matter gathering to higher and higher densities under it's own gravitational pull. If it didn't start in perfect symmetry of matter spacial matter density, and absolutely perfect symmetry of surrounding gravitational fields, and it never does, it's too rare to even imagine, it will start swirling or spinning, and as a given mass is condensed to higher and higher density, the rotation speed will increase, not unlike a spinning dancer who gather their arms and tightens them to their body, to increase their spinning speed.

Everything celestial spins, because it wasn't formed in perfectly symmetrical form of matter and pulling fields.

Spherocity, plain and simply, is caused by rotation!

No it's not. Spherocity is caused by the fact that a gravitational field acts in all directions.

Field acts in all directions = omnidirectional

- - - -

Have you guys seen the water spouted from a container in the space shuttle? Omnidirectional air pressure rounds them to little spheres of water, in matter of miliseconds

On earth, the tear-shaped droplets are spheres deformed by unidirectional air-flow of the drop

Perhaps, but lets get beyond this for a moment.

"The Big Bang whereabouts", et. al.

Pretend, for a moment, that you are an infinitely small particle (?), but, you have vision, senses, etc. and you can comprehend what's going on, AND, you reside at this infinitely small space at the exact moment of the BB (?).

Now, in this imaginary scenario, as things begin moving outward from our infinitely small nest, we must assume that every "moment" (particle, if you prefer) has the absolutely exact same mass, for why should any particle have a different mass (atomic weight) from any other? Then, if that be the case, inertia should not be a factor, whatsoever, in determining that some particle collides with some other particle. Everything, is moving away from every other thing equally!

Question: If this should/could be a legitimate scenario (I like that word), then, without collisions, why should rotation ever happen? Seems like everything should proceed linearly in an organized fashion. However, it has been duly noted by others of an erudite persuasion, that space itself was created at the whatever (BB). NOW, even if that happened, why should any one group of particles be more affected than any other group, as far as creating an inertia effect that might cause something like rotation to begin?

Lets look at it from the other side. We didn't have a BB, we had a BS (Big Suck)! In other words space happened first and created an instant vacuum and our infinitely small nest was suddenly yanked apart, i.e., yanked into existence (damn, just can't get any sleep around here) with all this yanking and commotion. Even so, there's so logical evidence that anything should not have progressed in a purely linearly fashion.

Why, in the primordial soup, did rotation become such a primary ingredient in our existence? Can you envision any alternatives?

Allow me only this to add: at the initial moment of creation, there were no particles, only the four fundamental forces (nuclear strong, nuclear weak, electromagnetic and gravity), and even these came into being in turns, according to the cooling temperatures and pressure levels of the expanding universe.

Once the expansion was in motion and the evolving force-fields started to interact in their respective permitting temperatures, did particles come into being, and later, as these started to interact in their respective permitting temperatures, did atoms come into being, and later as these started to interact in their respective permitting temperatures, did molecules come into being.

Yeah. What he said.

Johnjohn,

Huh?! What is the question? In the beginning, for several thousand or million years after the BB, matter didn't exist. Once it got cool enough, matter came into existence. The explosion that was the BB was uniform to a point, but there were some irregularities. This is why the background radiation is not completely uniform and why voids in the distribution of matter are being discovered - at least this is what we think they're saying.

As far as the round shape of stars and planets, when matter starts touching other matter, there is a tendency for sphere-like objects to form because gravitational force is not polarized like magnetism. With big conglomerates of matter all pulling to themselves, the shape will come out like a sphere.

As for spinning or orbital rotation, I think Yuval covered that quite well in #75. If you have a cloud of matter all that matter is attracting to every other piece. Eventually, a dense spot is going to form. As that spot becomes more dense, orbital mechanics suggests that the other matter is going to be attracted to that dense spot. As the matter is attracted, some will fly off, some will fall directly in and a lot will start to go into orbit about the center of density. That's your spin! In a solar system, you have planets orbit the central star. In a galaxy, all mass is orbiting the galactic center.

I agree with you that where motion is unrestricted (x, y, and z) and where force is symmetrical (gravity), things are going to have a tendency to go round-and-round each other.

"for several thousand or million years after the BB, matter didn't exist. Once it got cool enough, matter came into existence."

Ok, ok. But, are you saying that perhaps the very fact of cooling itself is what caused primordial energy to transform itself into matter? That implies that the source of the BB, if we pursue that as the source of [our] universe, was pure heat (∞° might do it)! Of course, space itself did not, at that "time" exist (quoted, because time did not exist either). If space, and time, are being created by the "explosion that was the BB" (your words) why should cooling occur? Granted, in normal conditions (normal, of course, being strictly relative) temperatures would, of course, decrease as distance from the source of heat increases. What you're leaving out, my friend, is that "distance", space, and time, as they occurred at that TIME (can't get away from that word) were simultaneous! Thus conditions remain, at best, speculative. Our currently accepted laws of physics, that we now consider indisputable, don't apply at the origin.

Yuval said "Once the expansion was in motion and the evolving force-fields started to interact in their respective permitting temperatures, did particles come into being, and later, as these started to interact in their respective permitting temperatures, did atoms come into being, and later as these started to interact in their respective permitting temperatures, did molecules come into being."

Same argument Yuval!

Furthermore, you said

"Allow me only this to add: at the initial moment of creation, there were no particles, only the four fundamental forces (nuclear strong, nuclear weak, electromagnetic and gravity), and even these came into being in turns, according to the cooling temperatures and pressure levels of the expanding universe."

Good point! However the Four Fundamental Forces were yet to be accepted by the illustrators of Marvel Comics!

"...the source of [our] universe, was pure heat ..." - Heat is just an indication for a lot of pressure in a too-small space. Once this containment space is expanded the temperature goes down.

This is true with or without matter (as structured, channeled, energy).

There is a "window" of "permittable" pressure and temperature for structured matter to exist.

"...Four Fundamental Forces were yet to be accepted by the illustrators of Marvel Comics!..."

I can only guess you think I just invented those...

This should illustrate the time-line for some of the topics here

"...the Four Fundamental Forces were yet to be accepted ..."

Here