After the Big Bang

[mooware]

Just a curious question, and probably seems rather stupid..<br /><br />8 Minutes after the big bang, I'm assuming the entire universe would only be about 1 au in diameter?<br /><br />

 

[bbrock]

To the best of our knowledge and understanding, this would be true. <br /><br />Carry this trend of thought a little further. Assuming the Big Band occured 13.7 BYrs ago. 14 BYrs would not have existed in what we understand to be Space - Time. <br /><br />A corrillary -- 14 Billion Light years from the center of the Big Bang -- currently does not exist in Space-Time.

 

[5stone10]

No - its a valid question.<br /><br />I have a problem assuming that tremendous amount of energy could have been contained in a ~1 au area.<br /><br />What force could be that strong as too contain that great degree of energy? After all, gravity is a weak force - isn't it?

 

[bbrock]

5stone10<br /><br />Another way to ask the original question was -- at the time of the Big Bang, was the speed of light = 183000 miles per second. To our knowledge this is true. If it is true, then the expanding universe would have been equal to 1 AU , eight minutes after the Big Bang. <br /><br />Nothing was contained. To our knowledge, that was the ultimate universal speed, as it is now. Or do you believe that matter and energy can travel at greater then the speed of light?<br /><br />Perhaps So. Since it would be expanding at the edge of Space - Time, and not just through space. ??? Hell, I don't know. <br /><br />Bill

 

[mooware]

Now 8 minutes after the bang, it seems true that the flash would be about 1 au in diameter. What about the actual matter? Would it be less, since mass can't travel at the speed of light?<br /><br />

 

[larper]

This is the paradox in modern cosmology. If the universe was expanding as very near c right after the big bang, then the "diameter" of the universe should be less than the age of the universe, especially since the universe has slowed down its expansion since then.<br /><br />But, observations point to a universe that is "younger than it is big". <br /><br />So, inflationary models are proposed, that state the universe expanded at many times c in the early days. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[5stone10]

This was my point - because the question was not at what distance is the Big Bang flashpoint - but rather what was the diameter of space at 8 minutes.<br /><br />So we're talking about space itself possibly moving greater than the speed of light, rather than the Big Bang flashpoint moving at greater than c.

 

[5stone10]

Additionally, wouldn't the Big Bang flashpoint be moving at c in every direction? <br /><br />So again, I've got an issue with the diameter of the universe being 1au at BB plus 8 minutes. <br /><br />Here's an excerpt from a generic Big Bang primer />><br />"Basic Elements Form 3 minutes after the Big Bang<br /><br />In the next few minutes, the universe as we know it took shape. Already incomprehensibly large, its protons and neutrons came together to form the nuclei of simple elements."

 

[Maddad]

mooware<br />"<font color="yellow">Now 8 minutes after the bang, it seems true that the flash would be about 1 au in diameter. What about the actual matter? Would it be less, since mass can't travel at the speed of light?</font><br /><br />There are several possible modifications of this idea. The first is that the very early universe expanded many, many times faster than the speed of light. Later it slowed down, but at the moment I do not know of a realistic value for later. It may be that the universe was quite a bit bigger than 1 AU at eight minutes old.<br /><br />The second possible issues is that there wasn't any matter at this early stage. The energy was too intense, so matter did not percipitate out of the sea of radiation.<br /><br />The third issue is that there is no problem with matter moving faster than the speed of light provided that it is being carried along with expanding space as opposed to simply moving through it. Matter moving faster than the speed of light because it is being carried along with expanding space does not violate relativity.

 

[thalion]

Not necessarily. Given the evidence for cosmic inflation immediatedly after the Big Bang--and the evidence is considerable--the universe was almost certainly much, much larger than 1 AU at 8 minutes after the Big Bang. Keep in mind that the speed of light applies only to travel inside space, not to the motion of space-time itself. The observable universe, however, was probably just an AU in size. To be more specific, though, the universe was probably completely opaque to visible light at 8 minutes after the Big Bang.

 

[bbrock]

This is a new concept to me. Is there any estimate of the rate of expansion or speed of the Space-Time Boundary? Why would it have a variable velocity or speed. <br /><br />I assume - as I always have - that the boundary is expanding into something of higher dimensions. Does anyone have a theory regarding higher dimensions?<br /><br />Bill

 

[mooware]

I'm thinking maybe it's possible that the Singularity that gave rise to the universe as we know it, existed in an earlier version of the universe.<br /><br />Example, a massive black hole in a universe that might have had slightly different properties, exploded. Giving rise to our universe.<br /><br />Just a thought.

 

[bbrock]

What ever happened, will never be known. All of our reference is to the laws of science and math defined in space - time. We cannot comprehend anything outside of that boundary. I believe ther are higher dimensions, but for the life of me cannot comprehend anything greater then space-time. If I'm not mistaken, the string theory involves as many as ten dimensions ????<br /><br />What ever happened, the big bang must have been one hell of a crowd pleaser. <br /><br />Bill

 

[5stone10]

One way to look at it IMO - is through a relationship of the actual size of the universe to the size of the observable universe.<br /><br />That could provide a rough rate of expansion.<br /><br />Some estimates place the radius of the Universe at 70 billion ly, and the diameter of the Universe as high as 150 billion ly.<br /><br />Compare that to the age of the observable universe of ~10 billion ly.

 

[averygoodspirit]

The BB theory assumes that there was an initial, uncontrolled, and somewhat uniform explosion, in all directions, from a point of singularity, similar to what occurs in a supernova. This is a false assumption. In the beginning, there was a release of radiation, including visible light, in all directions, but the matter of the universe was released in a controlled way from a single point on the singularity. Radiation including visible light was emitted from this released matter as well. <br /><br />Don’t confuse the speed of light with the speed of matter. The initial release of matter thrust the singularity through the nothing, or pure void, that existed around it. (A force in one direction creates an equal and opposite reaction.) As the matter releasing singularity moved through the nothing or void, the matter that makes up our universe was being released, or laid down, from this point at a rate that was much faster than C because the singularity was moving faster than C. Our laws of physics don’t apply to the singularity because it moved through the nothing that exists outside the space time continuum. This is also why we see strands of galaxies and not a uniform universe. <br /><br />A good analogy is what occurs when a filled balloon is released. The air inside the balloon would represent the matter of the universe. Once the air is released, it propels the balloon, and then the air expands because it is not under the same pressure of its initial containment. <br /><br />The BB theory also assumes that the matter from the initial point of singularity is all that makes up the universe. This is also a false assumption. The causal factor for the initial release of matter from this singularity was something else, in other words, there was an external influence. <br /><br />The initial point of singularity was intelligent. When it realized that it was not alone, it was no longer the only point of singularity. That is when the empty space that surrounded it b <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">The initial point of singularity was intelligent. When it realized that it was not alone, it was no longer the only point of singularity"</font><br /><br />Intelligent?

 

[averygoodspirit]

Yes. The initial point of singularity was intelligent. The way we know this is because the universe that exists today is intelligent. That is a provable scientific fact. The intelligence of the universe may have come from the other something that was the causal factor for what we refer to today as the BB, but there is no scientific fact to support it. <br /><br /> If the big bang were the result of a mechanical explosion, caused by two universal singularities coming together and gravitationally resisting each other until one or both exploded, the universe would be much more uniform than it is today. <br /><br />The expelled matter from the one singularity enveloped the other singularity. The other singularity, or the remnants of the other universal singularity, still exists today. (Dark Matter)<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Maddad]

The universe today is intelligent. Really?

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">The initial point of singularity was intelligent</font><br /><br />Umm, how can a sigularity be intelligent?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The way we know this is because the universe that exists today is intelligent. That is a provable scientific fact.</font><br /><br />Where did you see the proof of this?<br /><br />

 

[averygoodspirit]

Maddad:<br /><br />Yes. Of course the universe today is intelligent. The universe is also a living being.<br /><br />You may not have found God yet, but God is always available. You, on the other hand, are not always available, and you are not in the same league. No disrespect intended. It’s a scientific fact.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[averygoodspirit]

Mooware:<br /><br /><font color="orange">The initial point of singularity was intelligent. The way we know this is because the universe that exists today is intelligent. That is a provable scientific fact.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Umm, how can a sigularity be intelligent? <br /><br /><font color="white"> If everything that exists today in the universe arose from a singularity, the universe of today is an expanded form of that singularity. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Where did you see the proof of this?<br /><br /><font color="white"> It’s not difficult to determine what the universe is because it’s all around and within us. We can use basic deductive reasoning to know that the universe is both intelligent and a living being. <br /><br />(We are alive and intelligent) + (We are of and a part of the universe) = (The universe is alive and intelligent)<br /></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mooware]

but what you're suggesting, Avery, is that the universe made a conscious decision to come into being.<br /><br />

 

[5stone10]

So much for a halfway descent thread !<br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[kmarinas86]

Face it. Avery cannot think crtically... so it is with the demise of this thread. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[mooware]

Agreed!