Big Bang: Definition of Universe Area

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pjpic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Pjpic
Messages
235
Reaction score
1
Is there a term for the area of the big bang to distingush it from the bulk universe?
 
Space news on Phys.org
As far as I know no term like that exists, because no physical distinction is possible according to current mainstream beliefs- the bulk universe is simply the big bang "area", stretched out over time.
 
Pjpic said:
Is there a term for the area of the big bang to distingush it from the bulk universe?
Within cosmology, we usually use the term "Hubble Volume".
 
Chalnoth said:
Within cosmology, we usually use the term "Hubble Volume".

No, the Hubble volume is only equal to the observable Universe for a particular set of cosmological parameters, which are not those we find for our Universe.

To answer the OP, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, but I think the best answer would be 'the observable Universe' which is what we conventionally call the patch of the Universe we can in principle see given the age of the Universe and the expansion history (which tells you how 'far' photons can travel from the Big Bang until now).

As MikeyW said, we have no reason to believe the regions beyond this are substantially different in nature, and in terms of the models we have for the Universe we assume that this region has on average the same kind of properites as the part of the Universe we can see, but of course since we can't see it we don't know for sure.
 
No such area. Big bang was everywhere you look, just as MikeyW said.
 
Wallace said:
No, the Hubble volume is only equal to the observable Universe for a particular set of cosmological parameters, which are not those we find for our Universe.
Well, not exactly. The Hubble volume is a word which is still bandied about to describe our local universe, though we understand it's not specifically talking about the universe out to the limits of our vision. The original poster didn't specifically say the observable universe.

As far as I know, there actually aren't any cosmological parameters for which the Hubble volume is exactly the size of the observable universe. But in De Sitter space it is the volume inside the future horizon.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
38
Views
456
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top