Does a finite universe make sense to you?

[DaveC426913]

DaveC426913 - Dave the big question that is confusing many people is where the the "Big Bang" and it's rapid expansion originate from. That is why I brought up the "bubble gum" analogy because if you see this link below and read how most cosmologists think the "bang" happened...it is similar to my "bubble gum" analogy up top.

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~aes/AST105/Readings/misconceptionsBigBang.pdf

And they've done a terrible disservice to their readers by taking a loose analogy and replicating it too literally. Their image should not have a spigot. And yours should not have a pair of lips. It defeats the lesson of the analogy.

 

[epkid08]

Just an added note, I've always thought that if one part of the universe is infinite, then many parts are infinite; On the contrary, if one part is not infinite, then infinity doesn't exist in the universe, and furthermore doesn't need to exist and be applied in nonsensical ways. Am I right in assuming this?

...But the thing that gets me is the fact that zero is shows up in math, and also in the universe; Its cousin infinity, shows up in math, why wouldn't it show up in the universe as well?

 

[marcus]

DaveC426913 - Dave the big question that is confusing many people is where the the "Big Bang" and it's rapid expansion originate from. That is why I brought up the "bubble gum" analogy because if you see this link below and read how most cosmologists think the "bang" happened...

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~aes/AST105/Readings/misconceptionsBigBang.pdf

Great article! Lineweaver and Davis "Misconceptions..." article in the March 2005 SciAm, if I remember correctly. It has often been recommended here at the forum.

It explains a lot of mainstream cosmology without depending on mathematical language, hope everybody has read it. Worth reading carefully...

NYSports, I don't recall the Lineweaver article offering any idea about where the material and space and rapid expansion ORIGINATE from.
(that is quantum cosmology, the models are fairly new, Lineweaver and Davis are giving an account of CLASSICAL, non-quantum, cosmology which goes back almost to the start of expansion but then stops giving answers)

Classical (non-quantum) cosmology is based on standard vintage-1915 Einstein General Relativity, which breaks down right at the start of expansion. It simply does not say. It takes the beginning of expansion for granted and unfolds from there.

Quantum cosmology is a fairly new field, with no popular-written non-mathematical book. The field arose in an effort to study behavior right around the onset of expansion, and to develop models which would make testable predictions about what we can observe now (going beyond the predictions of the classical model.)

Here is the Amazon blurb about a new book collecting many experts writings about their different ways of modeling the start of the big bang. there are about 20 authors. the editor who collected and put the book together is R. Vaas. The book will be too technical and expensive to be useful to most of us but checking out the Amazon page will give you an idea of the existence of this as a new field of scientific research.

This forum thread gives more information than the Amazon page
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=216219
It includes the table of contents, and even links that enable one to see preprints of some of the contributed chapters by the various authors.

But the Amazon page gives the essentials in brief
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540714227/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I see that the production schedule for the book has slipped. The publication date is now March 1, 2009. Academic book publication is notoriously slow---everybody wants to keep revising his own chapter to make it have the latest and greatest. every footnote has to checked etc etc. Anyway I hope they get it out by March 2009

The trouble with analogies, like your bubblegum, is that the experts themselves haven't settled on a preferred model (of the expansion-start) yet. So if there is no preferred mainstream model, then what is the analogy supposed to be an analogy OF?

 

[marcus]

So for all we know, the universe is actually expanding at speeds faster than "c" already. If that's the case we will NEVER catch up to the outer "surface" of this ball even if we could move at "c".

You recommended people read the Lineweaver and Davis SciAm article. It gives a pretty good treatment of classic mainstream cosmology. Have a careful look at the article you recommended.

I think you will see that in their picture there is no outer surface.
And distances have always been expanding faster than c. Since they expand by a certain percentage each year, you just have to take a distance that is long enough and it will be expanding faster than c.

For example, in earlier times distances were expanding one percent per year. So if you took a distance of 100 lightyears, it would expand by one lightyear in a year. But increasing by one lightyear in a year means increasing at the speed of light!

And if you took a distance of 200 lightyears, it would be increasing by 2 lightyears every year, so it would be increasing at TWICE the speed of light. This is routine stuff.

At present the percentage rate is much smaller. The percentage increase is only 1/140 of a percent every million years. But still, if you take long enough distances----the same thing applies but just for longer distances. We are getting light from stuff today that is receding from us at twice c. Lineweaver and Davis explain how the light manages to get here from rapidly receding stuff.

Important thing, though, is not to picture the expanding universe as a BALL of material expanding into a void. The standard picture does not have an outer surface. In the standard picture the universe is both the space and the material more or less uniformly distributed throughout it. There are nonstandard cosmology models, but in the standard version there is no surface and no surrounding void.

 

[sketchtrack]

Would mass expand with space? How can an expansion of space be postulated when space is nothingness.

 

[NYSportsguy]

Would mass expand with space? How can an expansion of space be postulated when space is nothingness.

Empty space (a.k.a. a Vacuum) is never totally void of "energy". It has zero point energy which gives it the "quantum jitters". The laws of thermodynamics and E = MC^2 say that anything with at least zero point energy (the least amount of energy above absolute zero) will have some minimal amount of mass as a result.

So, basically everywhere we see empty vacuum space, there is also energy and thus mass and thus a gravitational force present.

Hope this helps some.

MARCUS - I remember reading that part of the website where it said how light from the past still somehow reaches us even though it is traveling through the expanding space medium at rates faster than "c". You have to eventually day that if the very first light from the original big bang still has not reached us yet that it will be slower and slower and probably increasingly impossible for that light to ever reach us because as time increases the distance it has to travel and cover more ground increases exponentially.

At that rate, it will never reach us and will be similar to the effects that a black hole has on light.

 

[NYSportsguy]

SketchTrack - Mass isn't necessarily expanding, the is just more of it being created as spaces continues to expand because of the explanation I gave above.

 

[NYSportsguy]

Inclination and expansion are equal. This might be the next general relativity type of theory that needs to be formulated.

If so it would explain how light can never escape a black hole in the same way light cannot reach us as the universe recedes from us at accelerating velocities. I might probably b wrong here but perhaps this can put someone on the right track...who knows?

 

[marcus]

Would mass expand with space? How can an expansion of space be postulated when space is nothingness.

"expanding universe" is shorthand for the average regular expansion of large distances.

It isn't postulated. It is derived from solving equations, comes out of the math.

I don't ordinarily say expansion of space. I don't think of space as a material. So the phrase expansion of space can be misleading, if it makes you think of a material expanding. for me it is the sum total of all the distance relations between things, between events---the web of distances and angles and areas that make up geometry

If I sometimes said expansion of space, what I meant, or should have said, is the increase in distances.
(between, for example, two widely separated galaxies which are both stationary with respect to the microwave background.

the gradual percentage increase in distances is not POSTULATED it is an unavoidable consequence of the most accurate theory of gravity we have. Nobody has proposed a theory of gravity that predicts more accurately than the present theory. And the present gravity theory, applied to fit the data, tells you largescale distances increase according to a certain rule (the Hubble speed/distance formula) and it checks.

so it is not a postulate. it is an OUTCOME of using the most accurate theory of gravity that we have. (the theory that predicts the motions of objects and the bending of light most correctly)

have to accept the increase of distance at least until we get a better theory of gravity (which people have been trying to invent one for almost 100 years without success)

in any case it doesn't affect the distances within our own group of galaxies, they are too small to be affected by the rule-----only very largescale distance is involved.

 

[robheus]

Read How the Universe Got Its Spots by Janna Levin and then go read Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial website again. I swear to you that you will have a tough time believing the universe can be endless. It’s funny how that happens. Janna’s book is thin and easy. There’s no college math, no raisin bread and no balloons. Instead, it’s all the different possibilities and how to interpret the CMB and that kind of thing.

An endless universe has its issues. It needs an infinite mass at the time of the Big Bang. That means infinite galaxies and infinite worlds. So there must be one just like ours, in fact infinite worlds just like ours. Even so, I prefer an infinite universe too. But it’s nothing more than a preference.

Perhaps, but how do you conclude/proof that?

And in the case of a finite spatial universe, this would lead to finite time also because time would run in an endless loop.

So, that is basically the same.

 

[NYSportsguy]

Expansion of Space is another way of saying "creation of space". Something doesn't necessarily have to expand to be have more of it created. Space is "growing" at a rapid rate because it is being created so fast and thus expanding.

 

[NYSportsguy]

NYSports, I don't recall the Lineweaver article offering any idea about where the material and space and rapid expansion ORIGINATE from.
(that is quantum cosmology, the models are fairly new, Lineweaver and Davis are giving an account of CLASSICAL, non-quantum, cosmology which goes back almost to the start of expansion but then stops giving answers)

The trouble with analogies, like your bubblegum, is that the experts themselves haven't settled on a preferred model (of the expansion-start) yet. So if there is no preferred mainstream model, then what is the analogy supposed to be an analogy OF?

Good point. I however, from all the facts and figures I have read about, am going to say that my "bubble gum" theory is probably going to turn out to be more correct than some of the other answers I have been seeing for now. I also like the "eternal expansion" theory and the possibility of there being multi-verses as part of a Cosmic Landscape. To me these seem to make the most sense as of right now.

The article from Lineweaver and Davis state that "This ubiquity of the big bang holds no matter how big the universe is or even whether it is finite or infinite in size. Cosmologists
sometimes state that the universe used to be the size of a grapefruit, but what they mean is that the part of the universe we can now see—our observable universe—used to be the size of a grapefruit."

I do not find this theory to be plausible. The initial "Bang" had to originate from some sort of singularity or collision between other dimensional universes or branes of some kind to start ours.

 

[marcus]

...
The article from Lineweaver and Davis state that "This ubiquity of the big bang holds no matter how big the universe is or even whether it is finite or infinite in size. Cosmologists sometimes state that the universe used to be the size of a grapefruit, but what they mean is that the part of the universe we can now see—our observable universe—used to be the size of a grapefruit."

I do not find this theory to be plausible. The initial "Bang" had to originate from some sort of singularity or collision between other dimensional universes or branes of some kind to start ours.

Sounds like you have made up your mind already on some of these issues
But the first scholarly book on the subject Beyond the Big Bang isn't due to be published until March 1 of 2009. It will have chapters written by leading experts about the various ideas and it will include some you just mentioned.

You might be jumping the gun. This thing is just beginning to get the focus of scientific attention it deserves and studying conditions around the big bang (by whatever means can be devised) is going to be high on the scientific agenda for the next 10 years or so for sure.
Might be good to withhold judgment for a while longer. Hear what the various ideas are, and what various other people say.

 

[marcus]

Expansion of Space is another way of saying "creation of space"...

Doesn't make sense to me. Space is not a substance or material that needs to be produced. The words you use make it sound like a material.
I try to avoid using the words "expansion of space". Distances increase, that's all.

Nothing is created, nothing swells up, or stretches, or rises like yeasty bread-dough. Distances just increase.

There are no new distances that have to be made somehow---it's the same old distances as always---just that many of them, the longrange ones, increase by some percentage per year on average.
Like money in your savings account

 

[BoomBoom]

Nothing is created, nothing swells up, or stretches, or rises like yeasty bread-dough. Distances just increase.

I must confess that this is an issue I have the most problems with comprehending.

As distances increase the result is more space in between the matter than was there before, yet at the same time it is said that the matter does not travel THROUGH space. It seems to me that the matter MUST be traveling through empty space for the amount of space to increase. Space is, after all, nothing...and the percentage of nothing is continually increasing.

 

[marcus]

I must confess that this is an issue I have the most problems with comprehending.

Here is a thread with some quotes from Einstein.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1386960
Let's see if we can pinpoint the source of confusion with their help.

Here's post #24 by George Jones
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1386555#post1386555
It has an interesting Einstein quote.

then I contributed #25 which has the following:
==quote==
“Dadurch verlieren Zeit & Raum den letzter Rest von physikalischer Realität. ..."

“Thereby time and space lose the last vestige of physical reality”.

(To try to paraphrase, I guess you could say space does not have physical existence, but is more like a bunch of relationships between events)

In case anyone wants an online source, see page 43 of this pdf at a University of Minnesota website
www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/Besso-memo.pdf[/URL]

"...
...In the introduction of the paper on the perihelion motion presented on 18 November 1915, Einstein wrote about the assumption of general covariance “[b]by which time and space are robbed of the last trace of objective reality[/b]” (“durch welche Zeit und Raum der letzten Spur objektiver Realität beraubt werden,[/color]” Einstein 1915b, 831). In a letter to Schlick, he again wrote about general covariance that
“[b]thereby time and space lose the last vestige of physical reality[/b]” (“Dadurch verlieren Zeit & Raum den letzter Rest von physikalischer Realität.[/color]” Einstein to Moritz Schlick, 14 December 1915 [CPAE 8, Doc. 165]).
..."

Both quotes are from Nov-Dec 1915, one being from a paper on perihelion motion. and the other from a letter to Moritz Schlick a few weeks later.
==endquote==

One way to say the significance is you have to [B]wean your mind away from thinking in the English language and focus on the distance function, the metric[/B]. And even more, focus on the web of distance relationships between events.

Events, like the collision between particles A and B, like the arrival of a flash of light at a telescope on Mount Palomar.
Maybe events are more real than points in space. Maybe, as Einstein suggested, points in space have no physical reality.
Only events and the relations (like distance) between events have objective reality.

In General Relativity, the gravitational field IS A METRIC, a distance function that allows you to compute distances between events.
It is nothing else besides the metric. And the metric set of distances determines the geometry (gravity is geometry, so the metric can serve as gravity, which is what he makes it do.)

It is a very economical theory. There is nothing extra, that one could do without. (Even more economical than I've said. Even the metric is boiled down. Two that are the same except for trivial differences are treated as one. All equivalent ones lumped together. All redundancy is gotten rid of.)

So he says, don't believe in the existence of space and time. Believe in the field---the relationships between events---for example, distances.

when someone says space expands, don't believe them, don't even listen to them. think: the DISTANCES are expanding.
the expansion is [B]seen in the metric---the distance function---and nowhere else[/B] because space has not even a shred of phsical reality so there is nowhere else for the expansion to be make itself evident.

Learn to use your confusion. Discover what is the focus of it, what intensifies your confusion. Maybe these Einstein quotes can help distill the essence of it for you.

The spoken languages were invented by primitive tribesmen. There are some things if you insist on thinking purely in words you will always be misled.

 

[BoomBoom]

One way to say the significance is you have to wean your mind away from thinking in the English language and focus on the distance function, the metric. And even more, focus on the web of distance relationships between events.

Nice post Marcus...that was helpful.

It does seem that a problem is the misleading words. But these words are continually used by many trying to describe an expanding universe. It is certainly no wonder why there is so much confusion with the subject.

 

[sketchtrack]

My intuition wants me to think that space isn't expanding, and things are just moving apart through space. Is the reason that that idea is false because our theory of gravity tells us that galaxies have no physical reason to be moving the way they would need to be?

 

[MiltMeyers]

Marcus I disagree and believe that space time is something. It is a quantum foam were virtual particle pop in and out of existence. It is what "Blew up" in the beginning and is still expanding with each passing day. ST consists of at least 4 dimensions and more I'm almost sure. The matter we see around us in in the far past was carried to were it is by ST in the beginning and now as it exspanses. ST has zero point energy and can create matter even now. As it in the beginning created matter and anti matter which may have repealed each other by gravity. This created neutrinoes which condensed into Hydrogen and some helium. The creation of matter from ST is still going on. In the beginning ST exspanded faster than light and that is how the temparature of ST is the same all over the viewable universe. Before ST there was nothing and that means time before the initial impulse function of space time was nothing. Zip nada nothing. Now that said, I stand in respect of what you have to say Marcus so don't rain down fire and brim stone on me. Also forgive my spelling as I only passed English 101 with a C and alway drew the red undrerlined comment SPELLING. Ahhhhh memories.

 

[marcus]

Milt did you see the recent Scientific American article about spacetime foam and the emergence of classical deSitter spacetime at large scale (from the micro-scale foam)?

The people who are farthest along with computer models of spacetime foam are Renate Loll's group at Utrecht and their collaborators (Athens, Tokyo, Reykjavik, Warsaw, Copenhagen etc.)

it's a strong group. You should know about their work if you are interested in the quest to find out what space time and matter are made of----what the fundamental degrees of freedom are. Maybe things can be made out of pure geometry (includng topology)---pure relationship and interconnection. I wouldn't exclude the possibility.

anyway they do computer modeling of quantum spacetime-----and big averages like Feynman path integrals, where they average up many random quantum spacetimes. Even the dimensionality of the spacetime is up for grabs and not always the same.

the article is available free, if you follow a link at Renate Loll's website.
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/title/title.html
Or you can read it in the July 2008 Scientific American.

========
BTW I don't think you contradicted what the Einstein quotes said. All the things you mentioned can take place in the context of the gravitational field. they don't require a new kind of material called space in which to occur, they don't require space to have object-like reality so that it expands and more is created etc.---all the things people say about it here when they think of it as a substance.

the things you mentioned, events, occur without question, I am saying that points of space don't have to have an independent existence so that these events can occur at those points. there can simply be a web of distance relation and other geometric relations----mere information. Isn't that enough for the things you mentioned to take place in that context? Or do you insist on more? Be careful or Occam will get you
=============

About brimstone. that is the Mentor's job. Guru is an unofficial democratically elected annual party-hat. It rotates. Be listening to what other rankandfile non-Mentor members are saying and get an idea of who you want to elect to wear the hat next year!
In any case you wouldn't get any brimstone even if I had it to hand out.

 

[sketchtrack]

There are a few things that have me confused now.

1) Is space expanding equally everywhere, or is it only expanding in between galaxies. If it is only happening between galaxies, then why?

2) When space expands, molecules occupying that space would have to either break apart as distances between the bonds increase, or it would have to expand itself, or it would have to move inwards to compensate for the distance increasing. Which of these options is thought to be correct?

 

[marcus]

There are a few things that have me confused now.

1) Is space expanding equally everywhere, or is it only expanding in between galaxies. If it is only happening between galaxies, then why?

"Space expanding" is kind of a bad phrase to use. Distances increase in the normal natural course of things according to the best model of gravity we have.

Distances within our solar system and within our galaxy are distances between gravitationally bound objects. They don't increase as part of this pattern. The pattern is only largescale distances between objects that are not bound in orbits around each other.
Even some nearby galaxies can be bound together.

so the answer is NO. not all distances expand. the Hubble law relationship is only true ON AVERAGE FOR VERY LARGE distances.

the thing is, it is amazingly regular if you look on large scale. nearly everything is receding by the same percentage amount each year.
====================

the Einstein equation of Gen Rel governs the distance function. the distance function changes constantly and dynamically and is affected by the distribution of matter.
so its behavior is not totally regular------it is the solution to a differential equation. like the surface of the ocean or the winds in the atmosphere which have their differential equations governing them.
but the expansive pattern is very close to regular (matter, which affects the distance function, is distributed roughly uniform, so the expansion at large scale is roughly uniform too.)

Mostly what the distance function is doing these days is that all the largescale distances increase about 1/140 of a percent every million years.
=====================

the Einstein equation is our theory of gravity. until we get a better theory of gravity we have to accept that the gravitational field is the distance function and it is dynamic and changing---geometry is changing (or another way: spacetime is curved)

2) When space expands, molecules occupying that space would have to either break apart as distances between the bonds increase, or it would have to expand itself, or it would have to move inwards to compensate for the distance increasing. Which of these options is thought to be correct?

If that's the choice, I'd have to say move inward.
"space expands" is an unclear phrase that often confuses people, you could try thinking in terms of distances increasing
distances between bound-together things don't increase in General Relativity. like the two ends of a stick or the two sides of a crystal. or two things in circular orbit. those distances between bound-together things do not increase

But in a borderline case I would have to say that they move inward and in
some extreme cases stuff that was gravitationally bound can come unbound. It isn't typical. Some theoretical models allow for even chemical bonds to be broken like in those Big Rip scenarios. they have little to do with everyday astronomy. I tend to filter that stuff out.
The ordinary expansion of distances is very gentle and doesn't interfere with systems held together by atomic and molecular forces. (That is why we aren't used to seeing distances between stationary things change. The distance between New York and San Francisco is more or less constant, almost.)

Wallace and Cristo are the experts about this. I trust they will correct me if I'm seriously wrong about anything.

 

[robheus]

If that's the choice, I'd have to say move inward.
"space expands" is an unclear phrase that often confuses people, you could try thinking in terms of distances increasing
distances between bound-together things don't increase in General Relativity. like the two ends of a stick or the two sides of a crystal. or two things in circular orbit. those distances between bound-together things do not increase

But in a borderline case I would have to say that they move inward and in
some extreme cases stuff that was gravitationally bound can come unbound. It isn't typical. Some theoretical models allow for even chemical bonds to be broken like in those Big Rip scenarios. they have little to do with everyday astronomy. I tend to filter that stuff out.
The ordinary expansion of distances is very gentle and doesn't interfere with systems held together by atomic and molecular forces. (That is why we aren't used to seeing distances between stationary things change. The distance between New York and San Francisco is more or less constant, almost.)

Wallace and Cristo are the experts about this. I trust they will correct me if I'm seriously wrong about anything.

I have also always struggled with this (esp. if you are used to the ontological definition of space as merely distance relations between objects) and in most (popular) descriptions, the issues related to that (why only space expansion at large scales and not at small scales) are often not mentioned, side-stepped as not important, or only briefly mentioned and which we then have to take at faith value.

What is important of course first is that it is well-established (in the context of GR) what "space" is.
In the Newtonian sense, space is not "something". So, expansion of space or two bodies moving from each other can not be distringuished.
In GR it is taken that those are different notions of reality (which would lead to "space" being something, i.e. "some form of aether"). Yet, on the other hand, there is no "absolute frame of reference" acc. to GR.

All of this together however is not very obvious and seemingly contradictionary.
Would GR somehow say that - energetically - distantiating two bodies from each other (two far away galaxies) is somehow different in case of:
1. Two bodies moving "in" space and receding from each other
2. Two bodies stationary in (local) space, but with the space between them expading

Further, if normal stuff (molecules) etc. have to somehow compensate for the (local) expansion of space, wouldn't that mean that this produces energy? (at least that is the case for gravitational bound objects).

WRT terminology, in cosmology the expanding of space (in distinction with movement in space) is often termed as expansion of the spacetime metric and/or references as the increase of the scale factor

 

[ThomasT]

Starting from any point in the universe, shine light in all directions; given infinite time has passed, will it have reached the edge of the universe?

Infinite time isn't a physically meaningful term. Would light emitted in any direction ever reach the boundary of a bounded universe that is expanding at the speed of light? Is that a meaningful question? I don't know.

It doesn't make sense to me to define the universe as finite, as there is no edge of the universe to cross.

How might we possibly ascertain that the universe is or isn't bounded?

You could imagine the universe shaped like a sphere, and traveling a constant distance in a straight path would eventually get you back to your original position, but still you would never reach the edge of the universe.

I do imagine it as an isotropically expanding 3D sphere, with us and everything else that constitutes the contents of the universe inside the boundary surface of the sphere. So, if you travel any distance in a straight line, then you will end up somewhere other than where you began.

At the border of our universe lies a dimensionless quantity.

Or, maybe it's the expanding front of the big wave that defines the border of our universe.

What are your thoughts?

That, except for the evidence of apparent expansion, it's pretty much all speculative -- but interesting nonetheless.

 

[eg180]

I think that is why many ideas proposed by string theorists (multi-verses, parallel dimensions, etc.) seem so far off in "left-field" because they seem to ONLY see the math without any observation or logic to back it up.

Thank "God" many of the scientist that came before us didn't let what would appear to be "logical" hinder progressive ideas and fledgling theories that eventually were given more credence. When you think about it, we are the oddballs of the universe - things don't often go past light speed and our temperatures, densities, and velocities are quite mild in comparison with the universe's quite volatile, and violent nature. It is not surprising that our common sense fails to grasp the true universe...our common sense does NOT represent reality.

 

[DaveC426913]

...our temperatures, densities, and velocities are quite mild in comparison with the universe's quite volatile, and violent nature. It is not surprising that our common sense fails to grasp the true universe...our common sense does NOT represent reality.

Well said. This is something I find myself repeating over and over to people who think that our physical universe has to make common sense.

 

[eg180]

Well said. This is something I find myself repeating over and over to people who think that our physical universe has to make common sense.

Hey, Dave. I'm new here and I am by no means a scholar or well versed in physics or cosmology - I've just recently found a fascination with quantum physics/cosmology, etc at 28 years old, when I wish I would have been exposed to this in my early teens. (I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household, so these topics rarely came up, unless they were in the form of a bible verse. ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth..etc.)

I hope to learn a lot from everyone on this board. It's great to find an outlet on the net for these things that I've only recently become fascinated with. I'm only a pupil but it's never too late to learn. (I guess it would help if I were good at math though.) :)

 

[BoomBoom]

Thank "God" many of the scientist that came before us didn't let what would appear to be "logical" hinder progressive ideas and fledgling theories that eventually were given more credence.

I agree with this statement. Logic builds on knowledge and what may seem logical in one era may seem a foolish notion to a subsequent era. The old logic is replaced with new logic as knowledge is acquired.
But, generally speaking, things that do not make logical sense often turn out to be untrue. I have no doubt that future generations will look back on some of the cosmology theories of the turn of the 21st century (especially pertaining to string theory) and say, "now that's just silly...what were they thinking?".

 

[DaveC426913]

Hey, Dave. I'm new here and I am by no means a scholar or well versed in physics or cosmology - I've just recently found a fascination with quantum physics/cosmology, etc at 28 years old, when I wish I would have been exposed to this in my early teens.

I have no education in science since high school myself. All my knowledge is self-gained. It's never too late.

 

[MiltMeyers]

Glad to hear we are all about equal in knowledge. Now let me restate. that as we look out to a time and distance of the cosmic background that it fills the sky in every direction that we look. The universe is much smaller then and all directions we travel will take us back to that time. Now go beyound that event back to the singularity and it also would be in every direction we can go. So now I ask you what direction would you go to get to the edge of space time? To escape we need a new dimension a 5D but our universe is only 4D. I've always thought that space time was exspanding at C but of course the matter was at a slower rate. The real noodle problem is that we are in the oldest state of the universe and so is every man women or child. Any direction we go from us is back in time to a smaller universe. IE the Sun is in a universe 8 minutes smaller from were we are. This can only be if we are in a 4D sphere or bottle as I like to call it. Nothing is ever lost from it and since nothing can travel faster than light nothing is lost. Some have said that the greater the distance that the faster an object can go till it is going faster thanC, like maybe 2C. I say that that C is the limit and all you do when you add space time is lower the frequency. The faster an object goes fromus the lower the frequency and that is why the back ground is in the microwave range. That is why the red shift. That is the way I see things so feel free to jump in and straighten me out.