Big Bang and space related questions

vi3tbomba · Dec 5, 2005

I was reading about the big bang theory and a number of questions popped in my mind. 1. If the light from the big bang is still traveling from the point it originated, what would be the its current distance if calculatable? 2. Does the Big Bang light lose its power or dies out when it travels that length of distance and is it detectable? 3. If the Big Bang did occur, would the explosion or shockwave still exist? 4. This shockwave should near reach the speed of light since it was a massive energy of an explosion correct? Thank you for your time. Huy

newtonian · Dec 5, 2005

vi3tbomba - Good questions. 1. That depends on the age of the universe. If the universe is 12 billion years old, for example, then the light from it would be 12 billion light years from the origin point. The problem is that the universe was not initially transparent so very little light left in the first 100,000 years or so - perhaps no light. Another problem is inflation theory, which states that the universe expanded faster than light for a short time. This then produces different light cones and visibility horizons rather than light from just one point. Another problem is that we observe quasars, etc., further than 12 billion light years away. Still another problem is determining the shape of the universe. And another problem is determining the difference between actual speed in the fabric of space and the speed of expansion of the fabric of space itself. Sorry to give such a complicated answer! 2, Well, the CMBR, cosmic microwave background radiation is from very early in the universe's history, when it became transparent apparently. It was very hot and is now cold, i.e. it has spread out and lost power (and shifted to the microwave end of the electromagnetic spectrum. 3. Yes. In fact, there are many resonant waves, like a cosmic symphony with harmonious overtones, as a recent Scientific American details. The effects of these waves include structure in our universe - though it is more complex than that. Now, I will add a question: If the big bang occurred at a point about 14 billion light years away and 14 billion years ago, will we see the big bang tonight?

vi3tbomba · Dec 5, 2005

To give an answer to your question in my opinion, I would think that light is too sluggish(which is sad) for us to see it. It would take a long time for us to see it even though it happend which is my guess. Why would determining the shape of the universe is important?

kmarinas86 · Dec 5, 2005

1. If the light from the big bang is still traveling from the point it originated, what would be the its current distance if calculatable? http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/redshift.html (3) Comoving Distance - DC The Comoving Distance is the distance scale that expands with the universe. It tells us where the galaxies are now even though our view of the distant universe is when it was much younger and smaller. On this scale the very edge of the visible universe is now about 47 billion light years from us although the most distant galaxies visible in the Hubble Space Telescope will now be about 32 billion light years from us. Comoving Distance is the opposite of the Angular Diameter Distance - it tells us where galaxies are now rather than where they were when they emitted the light that we now see. 2. Does the Big Bang light lose its power or dies out when it travels that length of distance and is it detectable? Yes. The redshift is enormous, and the light is spread over a wide area. On top of that, all we can really see of the big bang is the cosmic background radiation, because that's when the universe became transparent to light. 3. If the Big Bang did occur, would the explosion or shockwave still exist? No, because it is 14 billion years into the future. The shockwave would have dissipated by now. 4. This shockwave should near reach the speed of light since it was a massive energy of an explosion correct? Yes, but the shockwave would have be "diluted" by expanding space, so it's no longer detectable.

solrfusion · Dec 5, 2005

if light energy=(light + mass)c2. then subtract the mass. then all the mass in condensed matter,black holes,us everytrhing in the universe is transformed into energy.heating it.So when all frequencys of light and matter combine it produces white light.

kmarinas86 · Dec 5, 2005

if light energy=(light + mass)c2. then subtract the mass. This is already wrong. light=?????? in what units? Rather than this we have the following: Energy of light = planck's constant * the light's frequency Energy of matter = mass * (speed of light)2

kmarinas86 · Dec 5, 2005

then all the mass in condensed matter,black holes,us everytrhing in the universe is transformed into energy.heating it.So when all frequencys of light and matter combine it produces white light. If you take matter and some how turn it into energy, you're taking all that energy making it all go in straight lines instead of circular paths inside particles. How??? How do you know that the frequencies will average to be white "visible" light? What if they are all gamma rays? After all, the amount of energy inside a single atom is greater than the energy contained inside a gamma ray.

harmonicaman · Dec 5, 2005

Kmarina - I would answer number 2 a bit differently. I would say that; no, the light itself does not become "Tired", ("Tired Light" theories have been discounted). The effect we observe is based solely on the accelerating expansion of the universe. The expanding universe has left the light behind; it can never catch up to us. For numbers 3 & 4 I would just add that the universe was very tiny at birth (we speculate that it originated from a "Singularity) so any "Shock wave" we could observe would obviously be greatly dissipated into the expanding universe. It is unknown how profound of a "Shock wave" was actually generated by the BB event. It is possible that the BB was excruciatingly slow to unravel and when matter and energy came into existence, they may have created serious impediments to the expansion of time and space. The accelerating expansion of the universe that we now observe may simply be time and space overcoming the retarding effects of gravity as "m" becomes more diffuse in the expanding universe. BTW - I think your answers and explanations are excellent!

alkalin · Dec 5, 2005

Harmonicaman, There is current evidence that correlation does occur, therefore should not be discounted. It is a different phenomenon than Compton. And correlation is producible in the lab as of about the mid 1980’s. So should it be ignored? I must include that lab correlation can produce any wavelength, but nature might also include a limit we have not yet investigated. In my view, red shift is the result of correlation, not Doppler. This can totally change our perspective of what is going on in the distant universe. As a result, there is no ‘shock wave’, because there was no BB. The universe is more than just simple gravity, and therefore becomes less subject to the created fiction of math. But oh, how we like mystery, sort of like separating the mystery of expansion from the mystery of inflation. Do photons not inflate; therefore we count on them to predict exactly what expansion is doing for us??? When you have association to cosmological institutions, I can understand your reluctance to indulge other theories. Alkalin

nexium · Dec 6, 2005

Hivi3t: Current theories, make answers to your questions complex and subject to reasonable doubt. The Universe likely became transparent about 13.7 billion years ago. The first photons likely traveled a bit less than c because of the high density. I don't know if it it is reasonable to say the speed of the photons is c plus the expansion speed. Likely early photons were mostly gamma photons, but the expansion has weakened = stretched most of them (Photons that stayed inside a galaxy most of the time should have less dopler shift?) to much weaker = longer wave length than visable light = micro wave photons. Mainstream prefers a simple doplar shift due to expansion of the Universe between the galactic groups, with the "tired light" hypothesis being negligible or ficton. It is generally agreed that expansion of galactic groups is negligible or zero. I should think the original shock waves (if any) have also been dopler shifted by the expansion to about a billion? times the original wave length, making them undetectable with current technology. Neil

harmonicaman · Dec 6, 2005

Alkalin - Actually; I'm about the only one here who is a strict adherent to the old school theories... Everyone else seems to be trying to break new ground and make a name for themselves! They scare me. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

Saiph · Dec 6, 2005

You're not alone harmonicaman. I'm just a bit quieter than I used to be (grad school takes a lot of time!) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Search

Big Bang and space related questions

vi3tbomba

Guest

newtonian

Guest

vi3tbomba

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

solrfusion

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

alkalin

Guest

nexium

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page