Could the Big Bang be related to the flow of current in vacuum tubes?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dryson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang Vacuum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the analogy between the Big Bang and the flow of current in vacuum tubes, examining the nature of the Big Bang, its expansion, and the concept of a central point or leading edge in the universe. The scope includes theoretical and conceptual considerations related to cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the Big Bang could be likened to a vacuum tube where energy flows in one direction, proposing that the initial point of the Big Bang acts as a cathode and the expanding universe as the anode.
  • Another participant counters that the Big Bang did not occur in a specific direction or at a central point, asserting that it happened at every point in space simultaneously.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that the concept of a "leading edge" is applicable to the expansion of the universe, likening it to the surface of an inflating balloon, but this is challenged by others who argue that the balloon analogy does not support a central point.
  • Some participants clarify that there is no "center of the universe," referencing the Copernican principle and stating that the Big Bang represents the origin of all points in space rather than an explosion from a single location.
  • Concerns are raised about projecting the concept of a leading edge beyond the moment of the Big Bang, with one participant noting that the furthest observable points relate to the distant past.
  • Another participant highlights the limitations of current scientific understanding regarding the early universe, noting that prior to about 400,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe was opaque and much remains speculative.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of the Big Bang, its expansion, and the existence of a central point. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on the analogy or the implications of the Big Bang's characteristics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of terms like "leading edge" and "center," as well as unresolved questions about the nature of the universe prior to 400,000 years after the Big Bang.

Dryson
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Taken from another post.

The Universe was so hot immediately after the Big Bang, nothing but energy could exist -
Current can only flow in one direction through the device between the two electrodes, as electrons emitted by the hot cathode travel through the tube and are collected by the anode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube
Since the Universe was very hot after the Big Bang could the area where the Big Bang occurred be considered the device where the initial point of the Big Bang occurred and the leading edge of the Big Bang be the other electrode where current flowing in only one direction where electrons emitted by the hot cathode or in this case the actual Big Bang would travel through the Universe where they are collected by another process or the anode to form into early energetic bodies in space?

I'm trying to understand the process of the Big Bang by using devices that we have created that in theory should also be related to how the Universe functions.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The big bang "happened" all throughout space at every point, there is no direction in which it "flows" or "moves" and as such there is no "leading edge". I don't see the analogy you are trying to draw at all.
 
Leading edge is a term that applies to the furthest point of the expansion from the central source of the Big Bang. Just like the inflating surface of a balloon has a leading edge from the central source of where the exact center of the balloon would be located.

Also to say that the Big Bang ignited the points in space all at once would be say that each solar system had been predestined and prepositioned prior to the Big Bang where the Big Bang caused each celestial position to ignite into being.

If the Universe is expanding then the leading edge would be the furthest point from the center of the Universe to the furthest most point at the perimeter of the Universe where energy is still expanding outwards.
 
There is no "central point", nor a "leading edge" for the Big Bang. There is no "center of the universe" as far as we know, that is the basis of the Copernican principle, which is one of the fundamental principles upon which modern cosmology is built. The big bang was not some explosion that occurred at some point and propagated outwards, it "occurred" at every point in space (occurred is bad terminology since the big bang is a singularity and is actually more like "the origin" of every point in space).
 
Dryson said:
Just like the inflating surface of a balloon has a leading edge from the central source of where the exact center of the balloon would be located.
The center of the balloon is not a part of the balloon's surface geometry. If you're thinking of the 'balloon analogy' of the expanding universe this way, that's not how it's meant to be interpretted. The universe is represented by the surface of the balloon only, and all of the surface is there from the beginning - it just expands, and distances 'in the universe' (on the surface of the balloon) grow larger.
 
There is no "center of the universe" as far as we know, that is the basis of the Copernican principle, which is one of the fundamental principles upon which modern cosmology is built. The big bang was not some explosion that occurred at some point and propagated outwards, it "occurred" at every point in space (occurred is bad terminology since the big bang is a singularity and is actually more like "the origin" of every point in space).

indeed, and as I have seen on this forum on a number of occasions
You are at the centre of your observable universe ( regardless of where in the universe you are )

Dave
 
That furthest point is in the distant past. Are you trying to project it beyond t=0? That does not work very well.
 
Greetings. Please remember that there are "places we cannot go... things we cannot measure" yet and those include anything prior to about 400,000 years AFTER the Big Bang, due to the Universe being opaque prior to that time. We can extrapolate some data down to Planck Time - 10^-43 seconds but prior to that absolutely nothing is known or can be known until and unless we find something to measure (Gravity maybe?). This is further complicated by the apparent fact that the further back we go 4 fundamental forces becomes 3, then 2, then 1, so we don't even know how far some means of "seeing" gravity will take us.

Bottom Line = past a certain point we can do no Science yet. All there, is speculation, worth less than a sharp stick in the eye... which is apparently less painful than the job of Quantum Gravity guys.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Could vacuum decay save multiverse ideas?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Acceleration of time due to entropy
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Post big bang matter/energy distribution
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Creation of matter in the big bang
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Vacuum up-tunneling with high-energy events?
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Graduate Could the Laws of Physics Be Proportional to Entropy?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Graduate The big bang was a fluctuation of what?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Does Dark Flow Challenge the Big Bang Theory?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
Undergrad Proton decay at the end of the Universe
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Graduate Thoughts and questions about the CMBR.
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K