Big Bang vs Big Crunch: Universe w/No End

  • Thread starter Thread starter robert nies
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concepts of the universe's expansion and the implications of infinite space. It argues that if the universe is infinite or unbounded, it is not "heading" anywhere but is continuously expanding, resulting in an ever-increasing distance between objects. The terms "largest space" and "smallest space" are questioned for clarity, as they are not standard in scientific discourse. The need for references and clearer definitions is emphasized to facilitate understanding. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of discussing cosmic concepts without a shared vocabulary.
robert nies
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Let us suppose that there is no largest space or no smallest space as it relates to the universe. If this were the case it would be impossible for you to determine which direction the universe was heading.You would always see an infinite amount of space ahead of you
and the space between objects always growing.
 
Space news on Phys.org
The universe isn't "heading" anywhere. It IS expanding. Since it is almost certainly either infinite or unbounded, yes you DO always see infinite space ahead of you.

I don't understand your concepts of "largest space" and "smallest space". What do you mean?
 
Robert nies, Welcome to Physics Forums!

Normally people post questions here about science and members provide guidance and or answers. Of course, some only make comments on a particular discovery, experimental result, or planned experiment. Those commentators always need to include references so others can study up on the subject before they can make their contributions.

You have posted three statements with no background reference. Your terms (largest space, smallest space, the direction the universe is moving, see an infinite amount of space in front of you) are not commonly used, so for me it is impossible to get your meaning.

Will you please explain the connection between the title of your post “Big Bang vs Big Crunch” and your statements?

Thank you,
Bobbywhy
 
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

Back
Top