The theory does not say that mass and energy were created at the big bang. The theory is that all of the enegy and mass of the universe (the entire universe actually) were concentrated in an unimaginably small point.
Happy now.
Gravity never zero
- Thread starter Ivan
- Start date
- Status
The theory does not say that mass and energy were created at the big bang. The theory is that all of the enegy and mass of the universe (the entire universe actually) were concentrated in an unimaginably small point.
Happy now.
There is no center of the universe. There is no event-horizon of the universe. Energy is not conserved in the universe's spatial expansion. That doesn't mean energy is not present, but on a cosmological level, the conservation laws are not valid.
I can see why some would think that the location of that spot of the BB is technically the centre point of the Universe, even if every point in the Universe was in the BB itself there must have be a place (spot) where all things were expanding away from it (the spot that has moved the least).
I can see why some would think that the location of that spot of the BB is technically the centre point of the Universe, even if every point in the Universe was in the BB itself there must have be a place (spot) where all things were expanding away from it (the spot that has moved the least).
Seems like that should be true, but it isn't. There is no center.
The theory does not say that mass and energy were created at the big bang. The theory is that all of the enegy and mass of the universe (the entire universe actually) were concentrated in an unimaginably small point.
Happy now.
Hi origin, everyone.
Just surfing through quickly today, and your comment reminded me yet again that I have still to come across a consistent answer to my longstanding question (elsewhere) about that very assertion/assumption which is the oft-invoked 'start-off point' (no pun intended) for all subsequent BigBang logics/modeling etc....
To what, exactly, is this 'point-concentration' initial state compared to in 'extent' if 'space metrics' etc was supposedly a result of the putative BigBang 'inflation-expansion' process thereafter?
There are certain implications raised by the question itself. Namely...
IF there is no 'context' other than the BigBang 'universe' per se, then what is to say that the universe was not 'always this big' and what we now 'see' is just the evolutionary processes which 'look' as they do 'now'?
Else...
IF there WAS some 'external-to-BigBang-universe context' in which to make 'comparisons' as to RELATIVE EXTENT of 'point concentration' of BigBang energy-mass 'content/concentration state', then how do we know what that external context is doing to 'influence' what we 'see' and infer about the BigBang content/phenomena 'now' that is 'happening' WITHIN that larger context external to our BigBang so-called 'universe'?
You all get the drift I trust? Gotta go!
Will surf through again in a day or two to see your/anyone else's thoughts on this point (again, no pun intended).
Cheers.
.
Last edited:
Hi origin, everyone.
Just surfing through quickly today, and your comment reminded me yet again that I have still to come across a consistent answer to my longstanding question (elsewhere) about that very assertion/assumption which is the oft-invoked 'start-off point' (no pun intended) for all subsequent BigBang logics/modeling etc....
My guess is you have not gotten many answers because the following questions are so awkwardly worded that I no one is exactly sure what you are asking, I will attempt to answer what I think you are asking.
I think you are saying "a small point compared to what"?
Small compared to the current size of the universe. The universe is expanding, far galaxies are moving away from us. It stands to reason that in the past they were closer and about 13.7 billion years ago everything was in essentially the same point. So I would say it is a small point compared to the home brew I am drinking.
Well we can see from the red shift that the universe is larger now than it was when you wrote the above sentence, so it certainly hasn't always been this size.
There is no external to the universe for us.
Our universe is the universe. Think of an outside of the universe is futile.
Actually the only thing we can say with certainty, is that there is no center we can point to. Because from where we are we cannot see an edge or boundary, from which a center could be inferred.
No. We can say with certainty that there is no center. Unless of course, we are at the center. Because we see everything receeding from us equally in all directions.
That can only happen when we are at the center.
Or there is no center and everything is receeding from everything else in all directions at all points.
The latter is far more likely than the former, doncha think?
Is there any possibility of misunderstanding what we are seeing?
Everything is being diluted.
Shouldnt we consider this point as the centre of our Universe , because this point is the origin of our Universe ?
Was this point in existence before BIGBANG ?
Happy now.
This is not the question of happiness but the question for Physics/Science .
Wasnt the BIGBANG started from a point ?
Isnt our Universe expanding ? Isnt the point of BIGBANG growing spherically ?
Why ?
In cosmology , what is the valid Law for energy ?
This stuff is confusing becasue we often try to visualize the universe from the outside which sends us down the wrong path because there is no outside.
There was no point that the universe expanded from, that would assume the universe is expanding into something, which it is not. The universe was small then it got larger. There is no edge and there is no center. A statement like "that far distant galaxy is closer to the edge of the universe than us" makes no sense.
Yes, and that point was the universe.
Do you mean to say , Our Earth is at the centre of our Universe ?
Do you mean to say , Every point of the Universe can be considered as the Centre of the Universe ?
Kind of, but you can't look at it from a perspective outside of our universe. Everything in the universe use to be much closer together so much so that no matter could exist it was to hot. There was so much energy cramed into one spot that the fundemental forces could not even be separated.
The universe is expanding but not spherically and trying to visualize this you are again trying to view the universe from the outside which is only going to confuse you.
It only LOOKS like that because every far distant object is moving away from us.
Every point in the universe LOOKS like the center because every far distant object is moving away from that point.
So the logical deduction is that there is no center.
Do you mean to say that space originated from BIGBANG but time was in existence before BIGBANG ?
A point is nothing but a sphere of very small diameter or radius . If we can visualise a point , why we can not visualise a sphere ? Isnt the space expanding at a uniform velocity in all directions from the point of BIGBANG ?
No. I am saying that the entire universe was contained in that tiny point nothing else.
No.
- Status