Register to reply

If and when the Big Bang .....

by Harveyf
Tags: big bang
Share this thread:
russ_watters
#37
Aug25-04, 08:01 AM
Mentor
P: 22,301
Quote Quote by 4newton
Science has been unable to recognize simple solutions many time in the past. Does the sun go around the earth or is the earth flat?
Those ideas were never part of science.
selfAdjoint
#38
Aug25-04, 09:33 AM
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147
Russ? The geocentric-heliocentric controversy was never part of science? Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, were they not scientists? For that matter weren't Aristarchus, Hipparchus and Ptolemy scientists in their day? Have you read the Almagest? There are at least two modern translations into English. Warning; it's tough.
Phobos
#39
Aug25-04, 01:21 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,021
Quote Quote by 4newton
The Big Bang (BB) theory states that the universe ... expanded outward in all directions.
BBT does not speak of an outward expansion. It's more like the points in the universe are getting farther apart from each other.

All the contents of the universe are transitioning outward at the same rate and form a sphere with a hollow core.
There's no evidence for a higher dimension of space into which our 3D space is embedded. But your later description of this other dimension as Time sounds better.

The speed of light is the only known limit of the rate of the expansion outward from the BB. This rate is the maximum rate of transition of all things in the universe.
It's the maximum rate of motion through space, not the maximum rate of the expansion of space. (e.g., the early inflationary period)

Because the universe is expanding outward at a transition rate equal to the speed of light
Are you referring to the Hubble Constant (our observed expansion of space) or the expansion of the hypersphere you describe away from its center?
Harveyf
#40
Aug25-04, 04:09 PM
P: 22
My goodness, but the forum has suddenly erupted with dialectic on ideas in the expansion of space and hyperspheres. I am humbled by the profundity of thought. Then, too, I almost feel grateful that I cannot visualize the mathematical formulae as applied to the quantum physics required to dialogue on these theorum. I trust you will forgive my limited capacity for comprehending the exactitude of the science behind your ruminations, but I would appreciate continuing in this forum, if only to attempt receiving a glimpse of the far-flung territory you are covering in these debates. As the fledgling of the group, even though fast becoming a septigenarian, It has taken me up to this point in my existence to resolve the ramifications of religious exegesis injected into scientific discovery, to where I've been able to exclude such mythology from the reality of existence, and time and space. Now, I wish to enable my mind to grasp the scope of the universe about me in terms I, a most common denominator; human being, that is, can really understand. Since I am not versed in mathematical explanations, I can only hope for a dialogue replete with comprehensible visualizations. If analogy is the best I can hope for to achieve success towards this goal, I humbly ask of my peers in this forum if they can "come down to my level" in order to assist in my quest for wisdom of this knowledge you can impart. So; fellas and girls, tell me again: What, exactly do you mean a hypersphere as opposed to an "open" universe, and why, if there ever was a BB [like it appears there was], cannot the universal space accomodating it be created simultaneously? If, as you intimate, the "red shift" is indicative of material within the universe increasing its velocity away from the "core" of where a BB might have originated [for whatever reason], what might be the ultimate destiny of matter within this reality - and yes, I realize my manner of questioning appears more philosophical than scientific, but I have to believe there is a window of opportunity for both to be expressed so that even a layman like myself can appreciate the explanations on different levels for the benefit of all. Who knows; if an untested mind like mine can grasp the argument, who is to say that even this mind might not succeed in contributing something new to the equation of the why and wherefor of creation? With repsect, and in friendship.
selfAdjoint
#41
Aug25-04, 05:45 PM
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147
The universe could have come into existence all at once and the size it has now, but atronomical observation from the time of Hubble in the 1920's up till now shows it is expanding, and we can project the rate of expansion back to find out when zero volume occurred. The fillip that has been added in the last few years is that the rate of expansion is increasing (shown be several lines of investigation). so of course that affects our estimate of the time since zero volume. Current estimate is 13.5 billion years.
Harveyf
#42
Aug25-04, 08:50 PM
P: 22
Thank you, selfAdjoint. Thus; given that thirteen and a half billion years is the latest estimate for what you call, "zero volume," I take that to mean that the BB occured at that moment in time, thrusting from a seemingly central core all of the necessary ingredient material that makes up the universe as we know it. My question then, which I originally postulated was, when this material began its expansion, was the space; the "black" of it, so to speak, already existant, or was it created along with the expanding matter? To put it another way, in using the balloon analogy, the dots upon the surface of the balloon's fabric expand as air is introduced into the balloon...is the fabric itself being created as part of that expansion, or did the space [the balloon's surface or in universal terms, the "empty"] already exist, awaiting matter's introduction into it in the BB?? More importantly, am I missing some absolute in physics which makes my question moot, or am I lacking in a scientific principle which makes my analogy errant? Thanks for your patience.
RingoKid
#43
Aug25-04, 09:25 PM
P: 193
the other thread is moderated and it wouild seem reserved for uber boffins. I didn't know that or read the instructions before posting it, seems neither did you as your post has now registered 3 times....

thanks for you reply John, I posted one back . It hasn't registered yet but it might. I would repost it but i can't remember what i posted so hopefully it'll turn up in a day or so

cheers

here is the link for anyone interested...

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=40273
RingoKid
#44
Aug25-04, 09:33 PM
P: 193
BTW I been posting stuff like this for a while seeking some sort of feedback...

a universe trapped between a leading edge brane and a trailing edge brane thus resembling a universe embedded in a bubble skin 13.7 billion light years thick...ie, seemingly the time it takes for a photon to travel in a straight line beteween the two branes

and if the leading edge is expanding at lightspeed faster than the trailing edge that would give you your impression of a slow moving photon or time moving faster depending on whether you were looking forward or backward, and the impression of the spacetime hypersphere expanding..ie inflation of the universe

but seeing as how we are trapped in our 3d + 1d(time) bubble universe we can never have an accurate frame of reference to measure anything
RingoKid
#45
Aug25-04, 09:35 PM
P: 193
and think ripples in a spherical pond for a multiverse
marcus
#46
Aug25-04, 10:03 PM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,233
Olias has just posted link to a new paper about cosmology
which has no formulas. It is by a good writer named Rudi Vaas.

he does Scientific-American-level articles in popular science magazines
in Germany and also some more academic technical stuff. he's good in science and a good journalist as well

this paper "Time before Time" is a little bit more academic and philosophical than Vaas's popular sci. journalism articles, but it
may nevertheless turn out to be useful.
One nice thing about it is that it is free for download

http://arxiv.org/physics/0408111

It talks about the different visions people have had about the beginnings of the universe, including the new LQG vision in which there is no big bang singularity----he gives references to Bojowald and Ashtekar papers.
(but his discussion is entirely un-mathematical)
Harveyf
#47
Aug25-04, 10:42 PM
P: 22
Thank you, Marcus, for your consideration; from what I can see, the essay is most informative, and provides much food for thought. Thank you, again.
John
#48
Aug25-04, 11:24 PM
P: 133
4newton was saying the universe is like a sphere with a hollow core: an expanding bubble, just like my idea. He made the point that if we could go straight back to the center, it would be a Big Fountain.

The one radian idea was murky. I didn’t bother to understand it. I did ACCEPT IT and pursued a model where light can only travel 60 degrees (or so) around the surface of the expanding bubble. It never really worked in my head, but I didn’t get uptight.

All of his other concepts seemed right on. He answered a lot of the same questions I answered, by using the same expanding shell model. First, light has to curve around the shell. The universe isn’t a solid “loaf of bread” expanding in all directions with us in the center. It just seems that way. But as he said, if it were expanding in all directions (and we weren’t in the center) there would be a preferential direction.

(Assuming we are not in the center) the only way it can appear to everyone, everywhere in the universe, that everything is expanding away from them is if they are on the surface of an expanding bubble, or inside of an expanding shell where light follows the curve of the shell.

As for red shift going to 0 at one radian: I believe light has the ability to go around and around the expanding bubble. But we see light that was given off at an earlier time, which means the bubble was smaller then, so the light has followed a spiral path to get to us. It doesn’t matter how many times it has spiraled around.

I agree with 4 newton’s approach, and agree that when we try to expose the incompetence of others, that’s not the way to discover things.

If this conversation is good, we can also answer Ringokid's questions, who has a glimpse of the same expanding sphere with a hollow core.
Chronos
#49
Aug26-04, 12:12 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,454
The universe is not spherical. That is an urban legend. There is no observational evidence it is composed of spheres surrounded by spheres, or anything resembling that. If you boil that concept down, you end up asserting there is a preferred reference frame. That is not consistent with current theory.
John
#50
Aug26-04, 02:19 AM
P: 133
I think this is another "the earth is flat" conflict. I can't find any reason why an expanding hollow sphere doesn't work. I just naturally came to that conclusion, and so did two other people right here. And there are no other suspicions here of what it could be, except the expanding loaf and the "Big Fountain". There has to be some reference frame. It has to have some kind of physical shape, right? What does current theory say?

The only thing I have heard is, it is kind of flat (sic), but that is also what an expanding hollow sphere would appear to be. This is very similar to the "earth is round" debates.
RingoKid
#51
Aug26-04, 02:58 AM
P: 193
Chronos...current M theory would have universes as rippling bubbles floating and interacting in the 11th dimension

I would also have them inside each other

Imagine, if you will bubbles...
expanding as they float around
bumping into other bubbles
and inside of these bubbles
is another bubble expanding
and so on...

...and if all these bubbles
made a musical note,
as they bumped and merged
and expanded,
they created chords and melodies
and so on...

Here's something to think about assuming we are a sphere within a sphere..etc

What if the universe is expanding faster again by repulsion/attraction of a parallel universe. Does that mean another brane collision is imminent from the leading or trailing edge of our bubble skin and will it open up new dimensions or obliterate our universe ???

will we even be conscious of it if say we are transformed into a higher or lower plane existence...ie the energy powering us/our fundamental string building blocks as individuals gets reconstituted so that in the new post brane collision universe i get transmuted into a rock or an enlightened entity that no longer needs a physical presence to justify it's existence ???

reincarnation, nirvana anybody ???
Phobos
#52
Aug26-04, 04:17 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,021
-- mentor hat --

Let's try to keep this topic based on the Big Bang model (including appropriate modifications such as inflation theory), which was the context of the original question.

Discussions of string/M theory can be held in that forum and you can post a link here to that sidebar discussion.

thanks
Phobos
#53
Aug26-04, 04:27 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,021
Quote Quote by Harveyf
My goodness, but the forum has suddenly erupted with dialectic on ideas in the expansion of space and hyperspheres. I am humbled by the profundity of thought. Then, too, I almost feel grateful that I cannot visualize the mathematical formulae as applied to the quantum physics required to dialogue on these theorum. I trust you will forgive my limited capacity for comprehending the exactitude of the science behind your ruminations, but I would appreciate continuing in this forum, if only to attempt receiving a glimpse of the far-flung territory you are covering in these debates.
Don't even worry about it. Physics Forums is open to anyone of any technical level who wishes to discuss scientific topics. Our members include high school students with casual interests in science as well as college professors and professional scientists/engineers. Welcome.
4newton
#54
Aug27-04, 03:07 AM
P: 197
Phobos Thank you, for responding

BBT does not speak of an outward expansion. It's more like the points in the universe are getting farther apart from each other.
If you accept the idea of a Big Bang and we accept the Big Bang as a fact based on the background radiation. You then observe all the points of the universe moving away from each other. Distant objects = points and red shift = moving away, then you must reconcile the mechanisms that results in the two sets of facts.

It is then possible to make an intuitive leap from other observation in nature.

In an explosion, something like a Big Bang, it is noted that all the material in the explosion is sent out in all direction from the center of the explosion. It is also noted that the various components of the explosion form a sphere as they move out from the center and the components have increasing distance between them as they move out.

It is then reasonable to accept this as the mechanism of the universe BB. Checking this idea with the facts we find no conflict. This then adds support to the BB theory and the concept of all the components of the BB moving outward in all directions and forming a spherical construct of the resulting components.

Having at this time no extended understanding of dimensions we question our knowledge of a spherical surface and our universe. We find a conflict with the two. The spherical surface is two-dimensional and the universe is three-dimensional. The solution was simple. We just allow three-dimensional surfaces. This is a hypersphere with all the components, objects in the universe, moving out from the BB resulting in points getting farther apart.


description of this other dimension as Time sounds better.
You are right. I did not intend to give the idea that the expansion outward from the BB was a spatial dimension. My intent was to state that the dimension of the expansion outward from the BB was a different dimension and then later show that this dimension fits the observation of time and the time dimension.

It's the maximum rate of motion through space, not the maximum rate of the expansion of space. (e.g., the early inflationary period)
I agree that the only observation to date is the maximum transition in the spatial dimension. I did not go into inflation at this time and I think it is best to address this at a later time.

Are you referring to the Hubble Constant (our observed expansion of space) or the expansion of the hypersphere you describe away from its center?
I am referring to the expansion outward from the BB not (our observed expansion of space)

The expansion outward from the BB is of course related to expansion of space. Just as the distance from the center of a balloon to the surface is related to the distance around the balloon. In the same way there is no material of the balloon at the center of the balloon just as there is no material of our universe back at the center where the universe started.

This relationship tells us that the transition outward from the center of the BB cannot exceed the rate of any transition observed in the sphere of the universe.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Do black holes evaporate or go bang ? Astronomy & Astrophysics 31
LQG in the mainstream press Glimpse of Time Before Big Bang Possible Beyond the Standard Model 1
Black holes and the Big Bang Special & General Relativity 4
Big-Bang Theory Modification Real or Not Cosmology 6
The Big Bang and the Creator's Soup General Discussion 8