Is eeryone happy with the Big Bang? I'm not.
- Thread starter astrocat
- Start date
- Status
I will probably be corrected by someone who knows better..
I think the picture you have in your head is that of the lines of force created by gravitational objects in a space time map..
yes? no?
without any gravity to affect the trajectory of the particles,the only effects would be from the particles themselves(spin?,collisions,minimal gravitational effects)..after they spread out enough to be unaffected by other particles there should be a straight line trajectory..
i think current microwave background science assumes this..they tell of CMBR being a map of the big bang
I think the picture you have in your head is that of the lines of force created by gravitational objects in a space time map..
yes? no?
without any gravity to affect the trajectory of the particles,the only effects would be from the particles themselves(spin?,collisions,minimal gravitational effects)..after they spread out enough to be unaffected by other particles there should be a straight line trajectory..
i think current microwave background science assumes this..they tell of CMBR being a map of the big bang
I like the pic, but obviously it's very simplistic, you need to try and create a 3D model of it in your head. Not so easy! But it does show the basic principle..no?
(Was it kieth?) said gravity's influence was infinite, but wave dynamics would suggest otherwise, I stand to be corrected.
I'm not sure why the voids are there. It only really matters that they have been found. Whether gravity permeates them will be an interesting experiment, but not in my lifetime!
The question that i find most puzzling is how did the BB attain enough power for the superluminal expansion phase, and what happened to the shockwave..?
(Was it kieth?) said gravity's influence was infinite, but wave dynamics would suggest otherwise, I stand to be corrected.
I'm not sure why the voids are there. It only really matters that they have been found. Whether gravity permeates them will be an interesting experiment, but not in my lifetime!
The question that i find most puzzling is how did the BB attain enough power for the superluminal expansion phase, and what happened to the shockwave..?
isn't that related to cosmic microwave background radiation?
General Relativity involves (at minimum) a 4 dimensional spacetime universe, and all 4 of those dimensions are "curved". You can write down equations to describe it, but you can't draw that properly in a picture, and GR doesn't contain any "lines of force". What you can do is draw the trajectories you'd expect a cannonball or laser beam to take when you shoot it in various directions from some given starting point.
There's no "shockwave" from the Big Bang as far as I know, it's not like some jumbo stack of dynamite that went off and shot all the galaxies out in different directions. The Big Bang is not a concept you can understand in terms of analogies to anything you've learned before, it's purely a mathematical result. There is Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, but that was created about 400 000 years after the Big Bang, although it gives very useful info on what the early universe looked like.
There's no "shockwave" from the Big Bang as far as I know, it's not like some jumbo stack of dynamite that went off and shot all the galaxies out in different directions. The Big Bang is not a concept you can understand in terms of analogies to anything you've learned before, it's purely a mathematical result. There is Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, but that was created about 400 000 years after the Big Bang, although it gives very useful info on what the early universe looked like.
Expand please..
Until about 400,000 years after the initial expansion the universe was too hot for electrons and protons to bind, and so the universe was filled with free electrons. Photons were constantly abosrbed and re-emitted, never able travel without encountering electrons. When the universe cooled to where electrons bound to protons, space suddenly became transparent to the photons. The CMB are those photons which have been traveling since then.
so the CMBR is those first free photons? (light particles?)
how/why 400,000 years?
Oh..found this link..hawkings time line.
it says 300,000...but whats 100,000 between friends...
Actually, 300,000 years is the figure I've always seen for the recombination, which is what it's called, even though it wasn't a RE-combination.
I'd love to have someone try to explain the mechanism behind this expansion.
If black holes, which are only part of this universe, exert such a strong gravitational field that even light can't escape, how do they explain how the entire mass of the whole universe could be contained within this minute point, and not be trapped forever in it by its own gravitational pull.
How did it escape itself? What kind of and amount of force was necessary to overcome that kind of gravitational attraction?
It didn't escape itself. It fills all of space and works to slow the expansion.
There's a difference between space expanding, and something expanding WITHIN space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)
Notes
^ Note that the term recombination is a misnomer, considering that it represents the first time that electrically neutral hydrogen formed.
Notes
^ Note that the term recombination is a misnomer, considering that it represents the first time that electrically neutral hydrogen formed.
true. REcombination of a universe requires that controlled "resources" are put to "work" and "alignment" to be "observable". More or less what is going to happen to the sky during the galactic alignment. It only makes the universe more observable. Maybe we should make a miniture representation just for the celebration. :scratchin:
Do you post nonsense knowing it's nonsense, or do you hope that by some outside chance it means something?
Re: expansion: there was too much matter occupying too little a space for space to flow. Expansion was the universe's way of spacing out these particles.
R: the title of this thread. To paraphrase Sagan, the universe exists independant of your summation and observation... science does not define the universe- the universe exists independant of your opinion.
R: the title of this thread. To paraphrase Sagan, the universe exists independant of your summation and observation... science does not define the universe- the universe exists independant of your opinion.
- Status