Size of Universe

Quote: "And since we are looking back in time 15 billion years - we should see this dot regardless of where we point the telescope."

You are close, but: the singularity is not necessarily a dot. It is today accepted that it was very big, perhaps infinite in size, but of singular density, effectively meaning infinite density.

The Big Bang (BB) did not happen in one place, but happened everywhere simultaneously. In every direction we look, we look towards the BB, but we cannot look back all the way to it because the universe was not transparent for the first 300 to 400 million years.

There is a hope that one day neutrino detectors or gravitational wave detectors will be able to 'look' back much farther, since the universe should always have been transparent to those emissions.

Thanks for that insight. Looking back 14.6 billion years then, perhaps we would see a very large opaque dot. But if the dot is infinite in size - and thus so big that we cannot see it all in one go - i.e all around us everywhere in every direction - then perhapes we are inside the dot - and all we see is the opaque outer wall.

Horace, you hit the nail 'on the dot'. We are indeed inside your 'dot' and we see the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) as the 'opaque outer wall'! The best value for how long we look back is actually about 13.3 billion years, in a universe of 13.7 billion years old.

Thanks Jorrie. It's nice of you to help out.

There is an old saying in China "you don't konw it, because you are part of it".

explaining the unknowable with the incomprehensible

Is all philosophy - guesses in a void. Will all be proved otherwise by simpler numbers and words. Certainly not by philosophers.

Thanks for all the comments. I was just curious.

Here's a PS.

Having found a distant object, a dot, and now looking inwards instead of outwards. We zoom in only to find the dot, of enormous mass, is a galaxy - ie - billions of stars ( smaller dots) that have on closer inspection vast amounts of space between them. The mass of the galaxy must therefore be concentrated in 'dots' of even greater density. Solar systems, planets and asteroid, etc.

These dots, if we zoom in to an extreme, turn out to be made up of molecules (of even greater density) separated by (relatively) vast amounts of space.

Next step, the molecules turn out to be atoms (of yet greater density) separated by yet more space.

And supposedly atoms are made up a (sub-sub-sub) microscopic particles in their own (relatively large) space.

By this logic we have not yet found anything 'solid' at all - but the original mass (if space is massless) must be concentrated somewhere - supposedly in particles of (near) zero dimensions of (near) infinite mass.

Black holes or what ???

Quoting horace40: "By this logic we have not yet found anything 'solid' at all - but the original mass (if space is massless) must be concentrated somewhere - supposedly in particles of (near) zero dimensions of (near) infinite mass."

Now you have opened a can of worms! Cosmologists do not know if space is indeed massless. Dark Matter and Dark Energy is clouding that a bit.

Dark matter particles do not have to have 'near infinite mass' - enough of them with tiny mass will also do the trick. They may in fact be mini- or micro-black holes; nobody knows for sure.

Dark energy is thought (at least by some schools) to be the energy of space (the 'vacuum') itself. Now energy is equivalent to mass - so therein may lurk your answer, whatever that may mean!

Hope it helps - Jorrie

No. - The 'farthest` we can see is the cosmic background radiation

that was released some time after the initial event.

My View of the Universe.

Marvin E. Frisbie

Do you realize at the beginning of time there was a massive explosion that created a whole soup of hydrogen. The Hydrogen collected together from mutual attraction (gravity) until it was so compacted that the hydrogen lit off and the suns burst into the atomic reaction of burning hydrogen. They burned until they ran out of hydrogen. Then the suns collapsed, and compacted again, and another sun burst free from the residue, and the new collection of matter. About six successive suns created all the matter we have listed in the periodic table. We added some matter from Scientific Experiments with Super Colliders, fed by Large Linear Accelerators. (It wasn't just one sun collapsing, lighting off, collapsing, lighting off, Etc.) But a whole universe of suns. Some are still in the Collapsing, and lighting off stages. That doesn't seem like happenstance. How did all the matter, and energy in the universe get compacted into a point of singularity" about the size the point of a needle? Wait; I know: Happenstance. And the Finger of God.

To have all the Matter, energy, and anti Matter, and anti-energy compacted into one point of singularity took massive force to hold it to a point of Singularity, in a micro-micro-micro Etc. second, until the anti-matter, and normal Matter annihilated them selves in a burst of monumental energy, as the restraint was released..

Science found anti matter in Radioactive decay. The anti-matter particle pops into existence and immediately unites with a normal matter particle, and both self destruct and convert their matter into pure energy. I think all the dark matter in the universe, which scientists do not know what it is, is really anti matter. Very small particles, which are unseen, but have repulsion, in place of attraction, just the opposite to the attraction of gravity. Not as strong as gravity.

This explains a lot. The small anti-matter particles have the same Distance square loss of repulsion as does gravity's attraction. But the repulsion of the anti-matter to normal matter causes the anti matter to be compacted and thus the repulsion actually adds, so it builds great repulsion in the rifts of the universe.

There is evidence of these particles, by the Motion of celestial bodies orbiting other celestial bodies. It works like this: Scientists see the orbiting bodies always accelerating, but never reach escape velocity, to break free of the celestial bodies they are orbiting. This is because we are looking from the rifts in the universe. As an orbiting Body comes into view from behind the Celestial body it is orbiting, the repulsion of the anti-matter in the rift causes the Orbiting body to slow down, and drop into a lower orbit, as it drops, it accelerates. We are at a distance such as we can note the acceleration, but do not see the Drop into a lower orbit from our angle of view. As the orbiting celestial body moves across the Orbited body, the centerline of our view; the speed is at maximum, and the lowest point in the orbit. At this point in the orbit, the repulsion starts to push the orbiting body to accelerate around the Orbited Celestial Body, and the orbiting body rises in orbital height, until it reaches original orbital height, and velocity as it hides behind the orbited body. Back there it stabilizes into the original orbit, because it has achieved the velocity to establish the original orbital height it started in the last round. This goes on and on, seemingly always accelerating, but never reaching escape velocity.

At the start of each visible orbit we are looking at the orbiting body dead on. We do not see the drop in velocity from the repulsion from the rift, but we see the increase in velocity from the drop in orbit. The increase in velocity increases until it is in the lowest point in the orbit. It is there at the center of our view. We can not see the variation in orbital height, but we can see the increase in velocity. At this point the repulsion would increase the velocity of the orbiting body, and it would increase its orbital height from the increase in velocity. Then it hides behind the orbited body, and coasts at the original orbital height and velocity. There it would coast until it came back into view. This would explain the constant increase in velocity without ever obtaining escape velocity.

Our angle of view allows us to recognize the acceleration, but it also causes us to miss the change in orbital height.

One more thing: Stephen Hawking is correct in stating there is a wasting of matter in the Black Holes, as matter enters it. But it is not out the backside. It is visible from our view. The Black Holes have such a massive gravity, that it overcomes the additive repulsion of the small particles of Anti-matter. So the radiation of the event horizon of the black hole is the anti-matter and normal matter annihilating each other, the same we saw in radioactive decay. At the same time the anti matter is penetrating into the black hole, (because of the black hole's massive gravity Attraction) and annihilating some of the normal matter in the black hole. This is the wasting Stephen Hawking theorized, but just slightly different.

Please bring the above theory to Steven Hawking, as soon as you can. He is the brain in this now Universe, in the stature of Leonardo De Vinci, Newton, and Einstein. A Very rare atmosphere. I would like his take on this. If I have a possible correct view of the universe, I would like a Nobel Prize in Physics, for a non scientist. I'm half kidding? A letter from Steven Hawking would be actually more important to me. Fris.

One other theory. As light enters the Black Hole, it is charged particles, and as such do not travel in a straight line, gravity bends the Photon path, so I theorize that there is a very bright ball of light in the center of the black Hole.

Fris.

I don't see much use for the light in the center of a black hole, but it is interesting. Also I have a way to prove, or disprove the Anti-matter particles in the rifts in the universe, if anyone thinks this theory has any validity.

It would seem to be the only theory that fits the CONSTANT Acceleration of orbiting bodies, and never gaining escape velocity. I think I have a way to validate the existence of Anti- matter in the riff.

DO YOU HAVE A MORE VALID THEORY?

I will be interested.

Fris

One more thought. The Universe is expanding, and should not be. the Universe should be slowing down in its expansion from the Big Bang. This is another indication of dark matter being Anti-Matter. AS time goes on the entire Universe will be a thin mist in all direction, at this point, the anti-matter will be so thinned, it will not have cumulative added Repulsion, so it will then be sucked up by the existing black holes. in time all anti-matter will disappear into the black holes, with most Normal Matter and Anti-Matter destroyed in the event horizon of the black holes. Eventually all Normal Matter and Anti-Matter will be gone, left with just the result of the energy release in the distruction. What will happens to the Energy? Entropy. The final end of Creation. Thanks for the read. Fris.