Naive Big Bang Space Questions?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cbaa6b016b4e.jpg[/atsimg]

Forgive my naviety Above Top Soldiers, but I have some basic questions I need help with. Obviously I am no expert so be gentle…

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fa5b2107a5e7.jpg[/atsimg]

Why can’t we just look at the edge of the universe (starting point) to figure out what happened at the big bang? Is there a visible edge?

This sorta answered it for me but confused me further at the same time.

The farthest object seen in the sky by the Hubble and Keck Telescopes is 13 billion light-years distant, and is assumed to have been created when the universe was just 750 million years old. It would take at least that long (if not longer) for the material form the theorized Big Bang to coalesce into stars and for those stars to form a rotating galaxy.

But here is the problem. We are seeing that object 13 billion light-years distant not as it is today and where it is today but as it was and where it was, 13 billion years ago, 13 billion light-years distant from earth. In other words, for this galaxy to lie 13 billion light-years away from Earth only 750 million years after the Big Bang, it would have had to travel 13 billion light years in just 750 million years' time.

That requires the galaxy in question to travel more than 17 times faster than the speed of light, a speed limit which according to the Big Bang supporters was in effect from the moment the universe was 3 seconds old.

What type of technology do we need to see this? Is it even something that can be seen or detected? What if it never happened?

Before I continue, a brief history:

Map Of The Universe Picture From National Geographic - Warning, Huge Pic



A few interesting answers -

To be a little more specific than eri. As the Universe expanded, it cooled. Before the time where hydrogen could form (before then it was too hot and protons and electrons existed as a plasma, not combined as hydrogen) the universe was filled with a plasma which strongly absorbed all electromagnetic radiation. The Universe was opaque before that time, all light was absorbed by the plasma. So, there will be nothing to see before about 400,000 years after the Big Bang.
I should also mention that while there are reported detections going back to about 400,000,000 aBB, the *confirmed* (reproduced by a different group) oldest is about 950,000,000 after Big Bang.

The universe is a singularity - an infinitesimally small dimensionless point. The Big Bang event, which is what we call the beginning of the universe, is the initial expansion of time and space within our singularity universe.

Every point in our universe observes itself to be the oldest and most centralized point within the singularity - every point in the universe looks back in time at the BB event with the same relative perspective.

Yahoo Answers Source

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/da7fca6e82cb.jpg[/atsimg]

If the Universe does not have the critical density then the distance is different, and for the low densities that are more likely the distance NOW to the most distant object we can see is bigger than 3 times the speed of light times the age of the Universe. The current best fit model which has an accelerating expansion gives a maximum distance we can see of 47 billion light years.

Source

Wait a minute?? We can see 47 billion years back? How does this make sense?

How long before we know exactly, without question, what happened in the beginning? How will this change us? Is it our benchmark for stepping onwards on the next phase of evolution? The beginning of Type I Civilization?? Have other beings figured this out and used the knowledge to leave our universe? Is the visible edge of the universe like a locked door, but it does have a key?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/071bbeab5780.png[/atsimg]

Is the LHC at Cern looking for evidence of the big bang, just on an opposite scale??

Is the evidence all around us? Look at this picture of a bacteria-

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6921745c06b9.jpg[/atsimg]

Sorry for the bombardment of questions, just wondering out loud.

The simple answer is we can't see farther than 13 billion light years because that is our light horizon. Light further away hasn't had time to reach us yet.

If space is curved the seeing past the "edge" would only show you the opposits edge. It's kind of hard to explain. Imagine a big pacman game as the universe. You go off one edge only to find yourself on the opposite edge. This only works if the universe is finite in size.

If the universe is infinite then the 13 billion light years we can see are just that. It's the furthest light thats had time to reach us.

So in principle either way you could never see a physical "edge" of the universe.

At least that is my understanding of the light horizon.

Yes CERN is looking into QGP which is the phase of matter just after the big bang.

Yes there is evidence of the big bang all around us. Im sure you've heard of WMAP (wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe) the wmap image of the cosmic microwave backround radiation is evidence all around us of the big bang.

The problem with the theory is that it wasn't big and there was no bang. It should be called Singular Expansion in my opinion but hey why split hairs over symantics

[edit on 26-2-2010 by constantwonder]

Originally posted by constantwonder
The problem with the theory is that it wasn't big and there was no bang. It should be called Singular Expansion in my opinion but hey why split hairs over symantics

That could be what's throwing me off

"Small Expansion Infinity"??

Should ask the civilizations closest to the "beggining". ..unless we are them.

I have a stupid question to add to this and I hope this is on topic.....hoping I don't get flamed
Astronomers always say they look back to find the Big Bang by looking out into the universe, well my question is which way do they look? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the universe expand out in every direction? Would it be possible to look in the opposite direction of the BB and see future stars, galaxies etc.? I hope this question makes sense. It makes perfect sense to me but that's not saying much.

In theory, yes, it's possible to look outside of the universe. Remember, space is represented by the surface of the cylinder(although I believe your images only show the expansion in one direction.) There is no reason then why we can't look inside or outside of the cylinder.

reply to post by np6888


Why would it emit a cylindrical form rather than a giant ball?
Don't supernovas generally tend to explode outward from all directions?
What was there before the big bang?

Wondering302 beat me to one of my questions.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by Equinox99]

Originally posted by Wondering302
I have a stupid question to add to this and I hope this is on topic.....hoping I don't get flamed

Astronomers always say they look back to find the Big Bang by looking out into the universe, well my question is which way do they look? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the universe expand out in every direction? Would it be possible to look in the opposite direction of the BB and see future stars, galaxies etc.? I hope this question makes sense. It makes perfect sense to me but that's not saying much.

Yes, it makes sense!

Originally posted by dollarfist
Should ask the civilizations closest to the "beggining". ..unless we are them.

Maybe you should ask an equally viable question, and that would be "Did the Big Bang really happen at all?"

In A Course of Miracles, it presents the Reality that the Big Bang does not exist except in a "Dream", a Dream all of us are a part of (i.e., the same Dream). When we wake up from the dream it will cease to exist.

These days it seems that Quantum Physics can add credence to just about any theory. If we can change any thing, even the smallest particle, by just observing it, then it also supports the potential idea that if we are truly all in the same, single, dream, then anything we focus our "minds" on can be changed, because it only exists in our minds.

We don't really see with our eyes, we see with our "brains" and that becomes our reality. Even to a "delusional" person, his reality is reality. If you circumvented the input from the eyes by another means, that would also appear to be our "Reality."

To answer all question posed thus far:

The universe is 13.7 billion years old, although it is roughly 150 billion lightyears in diameter(although there are competing estimates ranging from 47-150). The Universe is both isotropic and homogeneous, meaning it is evenly spread and shaped. The reason we can not see past the "Great Wall", or the end of the visible universe is because light has not reached us yet.

The Universe is thought to be expanding faster than light, which explains this phenomena. The reason the Universe can expand FTL is because space itself is expanding, as opposed to something traveling through space.

The Big Bang was not really an explosion at all, rather it was the formation of spacetime itself. Some main theories on what caused the big bang lay within M-Theory and Brane Cosmology. It is postulated that clashing membranes created the Universe, if indeed it is flat, however if it is spherical in nature it is postulated that something called bubble nucleation created the Universe as a result of fractalization of extradimensional space.

reply to post by jkrog08

Thanks jkrog, best reply so far in this thread, I don't have anything to add to that except I didn't know what the other posters were talking about when they mentioned a cylinder.

It's kind of hard to wrap my mind around the concept of expanding space though, even though I've heard the explanation a hundred times, I just have this preconceived notion that space is space, like if I have a meter long piece of metal, does it get longer when space expands? And would I never be able to measure that increase in length because the whole frame of reference is expanding while we try to measure it? Anyway with the estimates of the universe size varying from 47-150 billion light years, it seems that the amount of expansion is anything but certain, that's a fairly wide range.

I think it's difficult (if not impossible) to comprehend the true shape of the universe, because we have a difficult time not seeing things happening in linear time. We like to think of things having "beginnings" and "endings."

But a more accurate picture of the universe might be that it's more like a Klein bottle that folds back into itself on many different levels. Or like a kitchen sponge, where the holes in it represent time moving "backwards" or holographically in other directions or dimensions.

You are at the center of the universe. Right now, where you're sitting, was once the center of the universe, and everything unfolded out of it, while also folding into itself. Forwards and backwards in time. Something might have happened to bring it into existence 13 billion years or so, but that's not exactly right, because time isn't really linear like that. We use it as a shorthand, because as I said, we're not set up mentally to do the other calculations.

So what gives it any kind of stability at all? It would appear to be consciousness, although that's like mixing colors and numbers (10+3 = green). As far as I know, the universe doesn't exist without me. I see the two as inseparably intertwined. If I'm wrong, I'll find out after I'm dead. Oh, wait. No, I won't.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thanks friend.



No, the piece of metal wold not expand, as it is already within space itself and rests within the fabric of spacetime (also called spacetime foam or subspace). Space itself is what we all occupy and exist in. Space is malleable, like rubber for example. Picture your piece of metal resting on a trampoline, the fabric that makes up the trampoline is spacetime, but yet your metal is a separate and distinct object that rests on spacetime. This concept is adequately described in illustrations of world volume membranes, such as can be seen here in this video:



What we see here is strings attached to the world volume membrane, which could be analogized with our spacetime and your metal rod on top of it.


Here is another one that explains M-Theories explanation of the Big Bang:

Originally posted by jkrog08
No, the piece of metal wold not expand, as it is already within space itself and rests within the fabric of spacetime (also called spacetime foam or subspace).

OK then tell me what's wrong with this calculation?

Let's say I create the 1 meter long metal rod shortly after the bizarre physics of inflation has ended and the normal physics we know of today has begun.

Now if space weren't expanding, and the big bang happened 13.7 million years ago, then the diameter of matter in the universe from the big bang would not exceed 13.7 billion years times 2, or 27.4 billion light years, right?

If that were the case, the meter long rod would still be 1 meter long, but it's not, space expanded, by how much? Well let's use your 150 billion light year estimate. 150 billion /27.4 billion = 5.474, so the universe is 5.5 times larger due to the expansion of space, and since that 1 meter long rod was in that space while it was expanding, has that rod not also increased in length 5.5 times from what it originally started at due to the expanding space it existed in? It seems to me that if the rod didn't expand with the space it was in, then space couldn't have expanded, unless you're saying that space isn't expanding where the rod is, only somewhere else?

reply to post by Arbitrageur



The rod did not expand because its atoms are mutualy attracting with much bigger force than the expansion. The inflation force trying to separate two objects increases with their distance, while the atraction force (gravity) decreases.

If the force of attraction is lower than the force of inflation (when there is too much distance between two objects..), the objects will separate. But in our galaxy and local group, the force of gravity is bigger than the force of expansion, and distance between objects is not affected by the expansion very much.

reply to post by Maslo

I see, so the expansion of space is very non-uniform.

Thanks, that answers my question!

So according to the the big bang & universal expansion quantum matter is constantly being created on unimaginable levels? Or is it the quantum foam is losing it's pressure and causing everything to expand?

reply to post by jkrog08


Now jkrog08 I'm really happy for you, and I'mma let you finish, but Plasma Cosmology has one of the best theories of all time! One of the best theories of all time!

... sorry, saw your sig and couldn't resist

reply to post by davesidious


Yes I agree, the big bang theory is from a philosophical view point impossible, cause nothing can only produce nothing. The best theory put forward to this day is that we live in a plasma universe, so to say a electric universe. If somebody wants emperical evidence that goes against the bing bang theory I suggest, that person check out Halton Arp's work. As far as I know we don't know a sh*t about the universe.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by The Reader]