Is eeryone happy with the Big Bang? I'm not.

[astrocat]

Everything that moves moves in a straight line unless some other force acts on it.

Yes, I agree. But there are many forces acting on Systems in Space, and I doubt that there are any Systems that no other forces act on, by that I mean, no System that has only one force acting on it.

Agreed. Also remember a picture cannot give you the true sense of what the universe looks like being only two dimentional.

Hi Ultra. Yes, and thanks for agreeing. Of course you're right, a picture, even if it represents a 3 dimensional picture, will always be 2 dimensional.

It sounds like you have a problem with how authors try to explain the big bang in low-level science books that are aimed at people without much background in math or physics. Such books often have simplistic drawings or analogies that try to give lay-people the gist of the subject, but aren't necessarily 100% technically accurate.

Yes, Nasor. I was actually thinking of the picture of the Big Bang in Wikipedia. The lines that the Universe is moving in have obviously been drawn with a ruler. If you know of a picture without such straight lines, could you tell me where it is?

Almost sure expansion occured in straight lines.

Hi Impet. Do I take it that you are saying the Expansion of the Observable Universe (the only part, surely, we can really talk about) occurred in straight lines?

Well, Impet, it's my opinion that there are no straight lines in Space, and I doubt anyone will agree with you if you try to tell them about these straight lines.

Speaking as a lay person who has taken the time to listen to public
lectures by qualified cosmologists and particle physicists I am struck
by the level of uncertainty within the scientific community, how is
the lay person supposed to be convinced if scientists openly admit to
only having a partial understanding of 4% of the energy in the Universe.
For the most part we must accept the BB as an article of faith.

Hi Woowoo. I'm impressed by your open mind. Myself, I don't think there ever was a Big Bang. If you think about it, Georges Lemaitre, who is generally credited with the Big Bang, On news that the Observable Universe had been found to be Expanding, assumed that the entire Universe was expanding, even though there is no evidence of this. (We can't see the entire Universe).

woowoo:

It's because of the big bang theory that we think we only know about 4% (or whatever it is) of the energy in the universe.

Without the big bang theory, we wouldn't be able to put any kind of percentage on it.

The big bang theory is not an article of faith, though. It's supported by very solid science - millions of pieces of independent data that all point in the same direction.

I think Woowoo's got a point.

yeah i know its very good science, COBE and the like, but if we are able to
perceive so little, it's a big leap to imagine
that what we do know supports a notion about the origin of everything
that includes the greater part we don't know about. :scratchin:

I think you make a lot of sense, in a field of fantasies and fabrications...

That is a rather perceptive question. Nobody really knows just how far gravity extends from an object into space. It is probably fair to say space gets pretty warped where gravitational fields overlap. A quanta of light might then appear to have a non-linear trajectory through this area.
There are huge tracts of space known as voids that are empty as far as we can tell. It is likely spacetime is fairly smooth there.

Newton taught us that Gravity was Universal, in his book on Universal Gravity. That means, of course, that an atom on one side of the Universe has a gravitational attraction to an atom on the other side (of the Universe).

Einstein completed Newton. Einstein didn't prove Newton to be Wrong. And gravitational fields overlap constantly in Space.

Voids are real, and their existence demonstrates structure, more than anything, to me.

...as time was created when the Big Bang happened- the Big Bang physically actually happened. Matter and energy in all directions all at once- expanding through now-defined space.

50.001% of all matter was positively charged and 49.999% was negatively charged. Why? Because if the universe was 50/50, it would be a non-universe... it would quickly undergo heat death with no observers. Only a "+1" universe can produce what we perceive as the universe- full of "physical stuff".

Branes interacting and colliding. Only with this collision, there was a remainder: 4%. This became all the energy and matter in the universe. The other 96% is brane matter.

Well, we've alll been juiced in the mathematics of the Big Bang, but you can do anything in Math, which isn't actually a Science. Impet, let's stick to the Science of the situation, can we?

How likely? Given the theoretic understanding of quantum fluctuating dynamics of empty space, and the notion that these "huge tracts' of empty space are so vast, that they define vast.

These voids are real. Are you disputing their existence, Keith?

Rule 1 when learning 'pop science', ALWAYS take it with a pinch of salt. A picture can only convey so much and when its aimed at people who are not familiar with the details then the details are going to be skipped or corners cut. For instance, in GR gravity is not exactly like a rubber sheet with a ball placed in it.

If you want to know the specifics of how the big bang involves spacial expansion then examine the FRW metric, which describes space-time expansion, including the exponential increase experienced during inflation.

I totally agreee that the Observable Universe is Expanding. But I'd like you to tell me how you know the entire Universe is Expanding?

And GR is often represented as you describe, but that's something we have to live with.

Until we probe these voids, I cannot answer that. However if there are vacuum variations there as seems probable, there is probably some distortion..And yes, they are truly vast. With nothing (known) there to produce any gravity the only source would be external - which goes back to the question: how large is gravity's sphere of influence?

Well done, Ultra. You have raised a key question, how large...?

As I say, Newton said Gravity never runs out, and that it is Universal.

i think you have a mind to make your own 3d picture in your head, i mean, you can can creat something, that you imagine in your mind and see it in your mind right? then do it

Good, Shadow. Yes, in my mind I see the Universe as a Vortex - going in.

I was looking at the Hubble telescope's recent pictures, and it seemed to me tghat Space is made up of a network of Galaxies. I saw more Galaxies than anything else, which makes me think that if everything else in the Universe is going in, and if you go to Wiki you will see, under Vortex, that Galaxies are Vortices (plural of Vortex) - then we're probably going in also. What do you think of that?

if you aren't happy with the big bang, don't you think you should discuss it with the bb first?

The bb? I'm sorry, Captain, but I don't really understand you? I'm new here, so tell me what the bb is?

I thought and I decided.
I am happy with the Big Bang because it allows my existence.
And about the picture, may be incorrect because "nobody" was there to take a picture.

That's funny, 'cause I thought (and thought) that because nobody was there, to take a picture, that maybe it didn't happen.

I know the Observable Universe is Expanding. How does it follow that therefore the entire Universe is Expanding?

That's just an assumption, and assumptions are dangerous, in Science.

infinite.

Brilliant - Boris 2. You are in agreeement with me, Newton and Einstein. How can we convince these others, that the bounds off Gravity are endless.

Gravity is real force, unlike the Big Bang and Dark Energy, which seem to be in trouble, lately...

Or is that just me?

 

[AlexG]

It's just you.

 

[astrocat]

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

Loved your picture. Yes, I think that's a pretty fair representation of SpaceTime.

The CMBR doesn't move because it is almost outside of the Universe, a part of the Warm Smooth Soupy Hydrogen cloud that was the Early Universe.

And how far does the distortion of SpaceTime stretch - infinitely, according to Newton. I don't think Einstein said this was wrong?

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..?

There was no Big Bang. It's only the Observable Universe that has been found to be expanding. The voids are there as part of the Structure of Space.

isn't that related to cosmic microwave background radiation?

it's important to bear in mind that the CMBR doesn't move. I doubt that it's related to anything as violent as a Big Bang.

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.

So now we have the truth. The Big Bang is 'purely a mathematical result.'

Mathematics are fine, but Math is not a Science - Astronomy is! You can do anything in Math, including proving that two and two equals Three! That's why it's not a Science. Science is bound by hard rules and Laws, including the Law of Gravity.

Expand please..

Allow me, Squirrel. The Early Universe started as a Warm, smooth, Soupy Hydrogen Cloud. Why Hydrogen? It is the very simplest of the elements, consisting of a single Proton and a single Electron. In addition, it is the most abundant of the elements, and it is what formed the Universe. Sol is a good example of what Hydrogen can do.

 

[M00se1989]

Do you post nonsense knowing it's nonsense, or do you hope that by some outside chance it means something?

I just wonder how all the universal laws would allow one big bang to make more big bangs, then I think about how to make humans able to safely accomplish the feat. Like how would they drive a fission powered space ship into intergalactic space, and implode something that would resembe the initial big bang. Then I pray to God someone has the ability to take me seriously. Then I think of the children who could always use better models for their education and simple understanding of our basic universe. Most kids these days are visual with advanced ADD. Giving them a decent model to look at can only bring a better understanding in future generations. But first we would need to construct a model that all scientists can agree on... which could be why there are people making threads saying they are not happy with the current explinations. Then I think of more nonsense the children could use.

 

[Boris2]

Mathematics are fine, but Math is not a Science - Astronomy is! You can do anything in Math, including proving that two and two equals Three! That's why it's not a Science. Science is bound by hard rules and Laws, including the Law of Gravity.

maths is the language of science, you cant do science without maths. in science you can't "prove" anything, maths has proofs. maths is more rigid than science.

hth.

 

[M00se1989]

maths is the language of science, you cant do science without maths. in science you can't "prove" anything, maths has proofs. maths is more rigid than science.

hth.

Strongly disagree: Observation is the language of science. Math is rigid only when nature requires exact dimensions to be calculated into our observations. Would we dare to try and calculate every atom within the universe? No, but we can make approximations. Math is only as rigid as the tool used for the calculation, and the way I see it we don't have any exact calculations for the big bang. Evidence?

 

[James R]

astrocat:

16 posts in a row, followed soon after by 5 posts in a row?

I have merged your posts.

I suggest you think before posting a string of posts in future. Use the "multi-quote" button, and/or combine your responses into a single post (or maybe two at the most). Otherwise it starts to look a lot like you're talking to yourself.

 

[AlexG]

.

The CMBR doesn't move because it is almost outside of the Universe, a part of the Warm Smooth Soupy Hydrogen cloud that was the Early Universe.

Incorrect. The CMBR completely, and evenly (pretty much) fills the universe. At any moment, there are approximately 400,000,000 photons of the CMBR in every cubic meter of space. And of course, all these photons are moving at c.

And how far does the distortion of SpaceTime stretch - infinitely, according to Newton. I don't think Einstein said this was wrong?

That's correct, but you must keep in mind that gravity diminishes in strength according to the inverse square law. It doesn't take very long before the gravitational attraction of any particular mass has dropped to a point where it is too low to be measured.

There was no Big Bang. It's only the Observable Universe that has been found to be expanding. The voids are there as part of the Structure of Space.

Again, incorrect. The fact that there is an unobservable part of the universe is a direct consequence of the Big Bang and Inflation. The voids are there because it is an inevitable outcome of gravitation. Any areas in the early universe which had a greater mass density, no matter how small the difference, would attract more matter, thereby increasing the area's gravitation and leading to clumping, which will also produce areas of almost no mass.

it's important to bear in mind that the CMBR doesn't move. I doubt that it's related to anything as violent as a Big Bang.

It's a simple enough matter to google the CMBR, and find out what it is and how it was produced. Have you done so?

So now we have the truth. The Big Bang is 'purely a mathematical result.'

Mathematics are fine, but Math is not a Science - Astronomy is! You can do anything in Math, including proving that two and two equals Three! That's why it's not a Science. Science is bound by hard rules and Laws, including the Law of Gravity.

You don't seem to know much about Math or Astronomy. And certainly not cosmology.

Allow me, Squirrel. The Early Universe started as a Warm, smooth, Soupy Hydrogen Cloud.

Again, incorrect. Protons and neutrons, and hence hydrogen, did not form until about three minutes after the start of the BB. In terms of the relative size of the universe, that's a relatively longer period of time than the following 13.7 billion years. Non-ionized hydrogen did not appear until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. It took that long for the temperature of the universe do drop low enough for electrons to be able to maintain their orbit. And that was the event which allowed photons to travel without absorbtion and re-emission, producing the CMBR.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Non-ionized hydrogen did not appear until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. It took that long for the temperature of the universe do drop low enough for electrons to be able to maintain their orbit. And that was the event which allowed photons to travel without absorbtion and re-emission, producing the CMBR.

thats the part that sounds hinky..

300,000 years to cool down?..that intones the universe may have been hot to begin with..:shrug:

just seems like a long time to cool down..if particles were expelled then it seems it would be sooner cause of the temperature of the environment away from the big bang..i mean doesn't distance from an event have a decrease in temp?

 

[M00se1989]

"The equation of statistical thermodynamics, the entropy of a system in which all states, of number Ω, are equally likely, is given by":

$$S = k_{B} \ln \Omega $$

Where $$ k_{B} $$ is the Boltzman constant. wiki

so... just average the hottest and the coldest thing in space one being a photon at zero, another being the temperature of the Earth, and the other being the core temperature of the Sun. and devide it by the age of the universe to see how much entropy has increased "since the begining of time" in our solar system. So we should probably put plank time in there somewhere... So its not so much the distance between an event has a decrease in temperature, as it is the closer you get to the edge of the universe the colder it becomes near events. Still more events yields a higher temperature relative to other objects in the immediate surroundings. What this means basically is that as our universe expanded into space, space expanded around it as well to help balance temperature.

 

[AlexG]

thats the part that sounds hinky..

300,000 years to cool down?..that intones the universe may have been hot to begin with..:shrug:

just seems like a long time to cool down..if particles were expelled then it seems it would be sooner cause of the temperature of the environment away from the big bang..i mean doesn't distance from an event have a decrease in temp?

Yes Squirrely, it was hot to begin with,

There is no 'away' from the BB. The BB wasn't an event at a particular location in space. It took place everywhere at the same time. The BB was space itself expanding, not an explosion somewhere in space.

 

[James R]

M00se1989 has been permanently banned from sciforums for continuing to post crap in the science forums.

 

[astrocat]

So? the OP has a picture

Why yes, it seems to me that the Cosmos is a Vortex, probably shaped a lot like the Milky Way or the Whirlpool Galaxy. How do you picture the Universe, if I might ask?

 

[astrocat]

It's just you.

What's just me?

 

[astrocat]

I just wonder how all the universal laws would allow one big bang to make more big bangs, then I think about how to make humans able to safely accomplish the feat. Like how would they drive a fission powered space ship into intergalactic space, and implode something that would resembe the initial big bang. Then I pray to God someone has the ability to take me seriously. Then I think of the children who could always use better models for their education and simple understanding of our basic universe. Most kids these days are visual with advanced ADD. Giving them a decent model to look at can only bring a better understanding in future generations. But first we would need to construct a model that all scientists can agree on... which could be why there are people making threads saying they are not happy with the current explinations. Then I think of more nonsense the children could use.

Not sure how this relates to Straight Lines in Space. Care to enlighten me, Moose?

 

[astrocat]

maths is the language of science, you cant do science without maths. in science you can't "prove" anything, maths has proofs. maths is more rigid than science.

hth.

But Math isn't a Science. Astronomy is.

 

[astrocat]

maths is the language of science, you cant do science without maths. in science you can't "prove" anything, maths has proofs. maths is more rigid than science.

hth.

I replied, but my reply did not get posted. I repeat, Math is not a Science. I think you can do Science without Math. Fire was discovered without Math. Do you know of any more important discovery in Science?

 

[astrocat]

maths is the language of science, you cant do science without maths. in science you can't "prove" anything, maths has proofs. maths is more rigid than science.

hth.

What about Fire. Fire was discovered without math. Can you think of any more important discovery in Science?

 

[astrocat]

astrocat:

16 posts in a row, followed soon after by 5 posts in a row?

I have merged your posts.

I suggest you think before posting a string of posts in future. Use the "multi-quote" button, and/or combine your responses into a single post (or maybe two at the most). Otherwise it starts to look a lot like you're talking to yourself.

I'll try your suggestion. I'm new to this Forum.

 

[astrocat]

I just wonder how all the universal laws would allow one big bang to make more big bangs, then I think about how to make humans able to safely accomplish the feat. Like how would they drive a fission powered space ship into intergalactic space, and implode something that would resembe the initial big bang. Then I pray to God someone has the ability to take me seriously. Then I think of the children who could always use better models for their education and simple understanding of our basic universe. Most kids these days are visual with advanced ADD. Giving them a decent model to look at can only bring a better understanding in future generations. But first we would need to construct a model that all scientists can agree on... which could be why there are people making threads saying they are not happy with the current explinations. Then I think of more nonsense the children could use.

I fail to see what this has got to do with Straight Lines in Space?