Non-ballistic big bang and expansion not from a center

G. E. Hunter

We will never be able to see the edge of the universe since photons and electrons did not exist at the beginning, but it does exist; it just changes from matter to energy to non-space-time. So physical instruments cannot detect things that are in space-time, but are not matter or energy. Negative matter and negative energy are hints as to other contents in space-time but not detectable by our present instruments. Life, thoughts, love - are not considered to be scientific, nor do they affect the universe as far as we can tell yet. But as we learn more about dark matter and dark energy, there will be more discoveries. We have more to find.

phinds

G.E.Hunter,

You have clearly misunderstood the baloon analogy and it has been explained many times on this forum, so do a forum search if you want to understand it.

There is no edge to the universe and there is no center.

your posts are, from the point of view of modern science, utter nonsense and you would do well to learn some basics before making such statements.

G. E. Hunter

Thank you. Good to hear you know everything. I'll keep that in mind.

cephron

Hey G.E.Hunter, instead of taking phind's words as gospel truth, why not read the FAQ and see for yourself what the current model of the universe is?

http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=206

It sure helps me out a lot.

pmghss

Our universe is contained within an infinite area.

phinds

You really should not make an unspportable claim of personal opinion as though it is a fact. If you have evidence that what you say it true, I'd be very interested in seeing it and in fact, I suspect that the Nobel Prize Committee would too.

juanrga

I believed that «common sense» do not play any role in physics since Galileo epoch or so... but was substituted by scientific method.

About popularizations of science, I am sorry to say this but almost all of them are wrong.

Imax

The BB can’t be ballistic. The Universe can’t expand from a single point, a BB singularity, and be homogenous and isotropic.

ThomasT

Afaik, the 'big bang' refers to a point of no particular size/extent but of calculable temporal separation from the current, observable, universal epoch. There appears to be a discernible very large scale structure wrt the currently visible universe. And I wouldn't call that structure itself either homogeneous or isotropic. But it does seem to be a consequence of particular fundamental wave dynamics, IMHO.

ThomasT

First, there's no particular reason to assume that our universe has expanded from 'a single point'. Second, our universe isn't necessarily altogether homogeneous and isotropic. There's what we can see and map. Which suggests fundamental dynamics. But there's no way of knowing if our universe is or isn't part of some preexisting, perhaps infinite, medium.

To elaborate, lawful wave dynamical evolution in an isotropic medium suggests observational isotropy, which is more or less what's observed -- wrt cmb anyway.

And insofar as this is a characteristic of all explosive/ballistic events, the origin of our universe could be ballistic/explosive. We just have no way of knowing, afaik.

ThomasT

I think you might be quite wrong about that. Study the development of the quantum theory. There's more 'common sense' classical reasoning involved in it than you might suspect. Anyway, ordinary categorical deductive logic/inference, as well as inductive inference are both part of the scientific method.

juanrga

It is just as I said. Quantum mechanics was developed following the scientific method, not using an ill-defined «common sense». The bibliography about the impact of quantum mechanics on people (and their «common sense») is very vast.

pmghss

It is simple. Either this universe is itself the infinite area, or it may be just a glob of matter contained in an infinite area.

I use my own quote. Outside does not stop.

phinds

You really should read some basic cosmology. As for posting this stuff, you should stop while you are behind (that is, before you get further behind).

ThomasT

From what knowledgeable posters here have said, and from what I've read, either of these do seem to be possible, as there doesn't currently seem to be any definitive reason(ing) for favoring one scenario over the other.

However, I take it that you favor the view that our universe is finite, which I do also. And this view seems to me to suggest that our universe is part of a preexisting medium ... which might also be a finite 'disturbance' in a still larger preexisting medium, or itself infinite, and so on.

The hook for me is the apparent expansion of our universe. That is, why would there be apparent expansion in an infinite universe? Why would observable matter be getting farther apart on very large scales in an infinite universe?

Note: Following my viewing of some computer simulations which extend what's known of the very large scale structure of our universe, I might have to revise my opinion, as stated in post #43, that the very large scale structure (that is, the stellar distribution) of our universe doesn't seem to be particularly isotropic or homogeneous. I was basing this on my limited knowledge of some apparently anomalous and vast 'wall' structures, and the irregularly organized (to me at the time anyway) filament-like structures of galaxies and galactic groups revealed by surveys. But maybe I just wasn't thinking big enough. The computer simulation suggests a fairly even distribution of the filament-like structure wrt its very very large scale view of our universe. Sort of like the cross section of a sponge. But then I got to thinking that maybe the simulation isn't 'thinking' big enough. If the simulation is based on some 'fractalization' assumptions (is it? ... I have no idea), then is it possible that a still much larger view will reveal the wall structure anomalies that are evident from observations ... and so on?

Wrt this, one thing that came to mind was that the filament-like structure suggests regions of constructive and destructive wave interference. Is this an acceptable/possible inference from the data?

pmghss

I have studied basic cosmology and the standard model. That's why I choose to use common sense instead.

I'm not sure about what is defined as a "finite" universe. What I was hinting at was that our "universe" might be blob of matter, similar to solar systems or galaxies, floating around other blobs of matter. This could possibly explain dark energy.

Picture a blob of matter a billions of times more massive than our universe. And this blob passes close to our blob (universe). The immense amount of gravity/dark energy (take your pick) could cause our blob to distort, stretch, bend, or any other number of contortions. From our view we could be seeing this event and explaining it as the "everything accelerating away" theory.

phinds

This is even MORE nonsensical. You say you have studied basic cosmology but you apparently have never heard of isotropy.