Big Bang

[chuchurokit]

if there was a big bang in space and no one was around would it still make a noise?

 

[mooware]

Sound waves don't carry in a vacuum, so I would say no. Even if we were around..

 

[itsawonder]

I have seen in documentaries that we can "see" back in time to almost the point where visible light began after the Big Bang. Since the Big Bang started as a singularity, how would we know what direction to look in?<br /><br />I am new to this site, and I hope this question makes sense.<br /><br />Thanks

 

[yevaud]

Yes, actually it does.<br /><br />Here's an analogy:<br /><br />You crawl into a huge wood stove that had a fire not too long ago, though the temperature is ok for you at this point; it's cooled down.<br /><br />Well, you can imply that at some point in time, before you crawled in there, there was a raging fire. And that fire began at a specific point inside the stove.<br /><br />But your only evidence of this is the remaining heat held by the stove, because the raging fire is long gone. But you can detect (feel in this case) the heat from the fire, so you can be positive the fire once existed.<br /><br />That's how we are now. When you hear of Astronomers detecting the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), which is precisely the "heat" left over from the "fire" that was the Big Bang.<br /><br />Some informational links:<br /><br />Arno and Penzias<br /><br />The COBE Platform that showed the first imaged "proof" of the CMBR<br /><br />The other important analogy is the old tried and true one of dots on the surface of the balloon. Each star is a galaxy, a cluster, a star. They all move away from each other, so it is not even relevant to say "what point in space, exactly, did it all begin at?" (that movement away from each other is the red shift we see from all other stars, etc., when we observe out into the universe)<br /><br />Look on it this way: if you deflate that balloon all the way, all of the various dots will rush together until they are packed together...and every point from the surface of that once inflated balloon is "the center, where it happened." Which is why I mean, "the question isn't relevant" - everywhere was once the center.<br /><br />Hope <i>that</i> analogy helped as well.<br /><br />Cheers! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[dougum3882]

"Well, you can imply that at some point in time, before you crawled in there, there was a raging fire. And that fire began at a specific point inside the stove. " Actually, you can't imply that the fire began at a specific point (at least not in general with heat dispersion - of course common sense would tell you that in a stove the fire had to start somewhere).

 

[harmonicaman]

<i>"Since the Big Bang started as a singularity, how would we know what direction to look in?"</i><br /><br />Not only did the universe start life as a <i>singularity,</i> it still is a <i>singularity!</i> The universe is merely time and space expanding within the <i>singularity</i> and it still maintains all the attributes of the <i>singularity</i> of its origins.<br /><br />In a <i>singularity,</i> every "Point" is both the center and edge of the <i>singularity</i> -- it has no dimensionality. Even though time and space are expanding within our <i>singularity</i> universe; every point shares the same perspectives of being the oldest point in time and the most central point in space (just like in a <i>singularity</i>).<br /><br />(Since mass distorts the expansion of time and space within the universe, this allows us to observe dimensionality within the singularity -- time and space themselves perceive the universe in its true form, as a dimensionless point; M=E/c².) <br /><br />Every location in the universe perceives the starting point for the expansion of time and space as having originated the same distance away in <i>every direction</i> at the same time!<br /><br />Every point in the universe also perceives the "Edge" of the singularity as being right in front of their noses at "c", the speed of light! (This is a "Philosophical Proof" of why you can't exceed "c"; to do so would put you over the "Edge" of the <i>singularity</i> and there's no "There" there...) The "Edge" might be right there in front of every point in the universe, but nobody can reach it.<br /><br />Whenever you ponder your place in the universe, just think <i>singularity</i>; and you'll have the right perspective! <br /><br /><i>"I am new to this site, and I hope this question makes sense."</i><br /><br />Welcome aboard, and I hope this response made as much sense as your well stated questions... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[harmonicaman]

<i>"You observe the universe from the outside when you say the universe still maintain the attributes of a singularity."</i><br /><br />Our universe is time and space expanding within the confines of the singularity. I agree that you cannot construct a valid viewpoint of existence outside the singularity because this perspective exceeds "c".

 

[itsawonder]

Thanks for the explanation harmonicaman. I think the "singularity" in my head is finally expanding to allow me to understand this concept!

 

[newtonian]

itsawonder - In all directions - i.e. in the direction of the CMBR (= cosmic microwave background radiation) and beyond to the source and extent of dark energy - when we discover how to observe dark energy.<br /><br />Actually, we do not know the shape of the universe nor are we sure there are only 3 dimensions plus time in our universe.<br /><br />Direction involves dimensions - compare String theories for some alternate explanations.<br /><br />I am not sure the universe started as a singularity nor am I sure the universe is a singularity as viewed from another universe outside of our universe.<br /><br />I doubt this popular model.<br /><br />I prefer the stretching fine gauze model where our universe is like a 3 dimensional (plus time) fabric with threads and filaments being stretched out in all directions. <br /><br />I will not link to this model, due to complaints.<br /><br />However, this is actually how our universe appears - computer simulations based on observations do show a gauze-like appearance with expanding threads and filaments.<br /><br />The observations which the big bang model are based on, with various variant models involved such as inflation theory, do not require a singularity to start with.<br /><br />The universe could have started at a point of intersection of membranes - this is the collision of branes model for our origin.<br /><br />The intersection of dimensions can be a single point or singularity. But the intersection can also be a 2 dimensional line or a curved line.<br /><br />However, I also doubt the collision of branes model - though it is worth taking into consideration.<br /><br />My favorite model is an origin that was very tiny but not a singularity - with a radius either somewhat larger or smaller than planck length (and width, etc.).<br /><br />In other words, the fabric of space may have already existed with exceedingly tiny dimensions until dark energy entered the picture.<br /><br />BTW - there is a center to our universe in 4-d: it is the begi

 

[danyopizzle]

How does the big bang make sense to scientists? where did existence start? Where did space even come from??? <br /><br />Ive always wondered about this, pretty much my whole life

 

[brandbll]

The Big Bang was a sub-bang that came off of the Big Kaboom. And i think the Big Kaboom was another sublet of the Big Batabingbataboom.<br /><br />Actually, i really have no idea. Check out A Brief History of Time by Stephan Hawking. That will answer the first question of yours. The second two i'm pretty sure can't be answered. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

Explanations are not causes of what they attempt to explain. The best you can hope for is <i>correspondence with observations</i>, but by no means does this show that reality is something you deduce from a theory, but rather, whether your hypothesis becomes a theory has more to do with <i>correspondence with observations</i> than reality.

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">How does the big bang make sense to scientists?</font><br /><br />Because they "understand" it. They "understand" it because they can assume a cosmological principle, which makes the universe easier to study. From the cosmological priniciple, combined with <b>general relativity</b>, one cannot deduce the nature of the universe from telemeters. In fact a cosmological principle, combined with general relativity, does not prove that our universe came from a singularity. It is simple one in a horde of many historical possibilities. That is why there is more than one idea of the big bang.<br /><br />The Big Bang (according to WMAP) assumes that galaxies between 12.7 and 13.7 billion light years are representative of all the matter in the universe in the "first billion years". However, it may be the case that these very distant galaxies are not representative of the matter all over the universe in their first billion years. It may be that time, instead of space, is isotropic at the large scales.<br /><br />To say that we live in the center implies that the axis of rotation passes us. We are not the center of rotation, but rather the larger the object, the more "center" is it. The only way to have a center of a universe (assuming that the universe is finite) is to have a class of object larger than anything else that exists in the universe in which a axis of rotation passes through. We are sure that an axis of rotation cannot exist at least in what cosmologists call 13.7 billion light years away from us. If there is such a rotation, our observable universe would have to be on the outskirts of it. If there is more than one of this axes of rotation, it would be as if our home was somewhere in the rural areas inside the triangle formed by Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, with the distance to the horizon being 1 mile.<br /><br />The desire is not so much to prove that a theory is correct, but rather to show that it is the one that correspon

 

[danyopizzle]

Where did the energy come from to make the "big bang" happen?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Where did the energy come from to make the "big bang" happen?</font><br /><br />Assuming that the Big Bang happened, you can't know since <b>time</b> in the Big Bang Theory is anisotropic and in this theory, whatever happens beyond the event horizon is unseeable and not subject to scientific observation. The Big Bang theory contradicts the possibility that time (not including space) is isotropic on the large scales.<br /><br />However, if you assume that time is isotropic for the large scales, we can assume that what has been going on, is still going on and will continue to be going on. Such a system would undergo many oscillations, much like the world that exists among quarks and gluons which go about 10^32 cycles during the life of a 70-year-old, with no abrupt end. Everything that is isotropic in time, such a light wave, or a planetary orbit, undergoes countless oscillations.<br /><br />Whatever the theory, the energy had to come from somewhere. It is simpler to assume that this somewhere still exists, than assume that it had disappeared. The Big Bang assumes that this origin had "disappeared" and thus cannot be observed.

 

[alkalin]

If we could come close to looking at and understanding all of reality thru science, then we might come close to answering those questions. But we are not close now. Way too many things we can only speculate about for the time being. So be patient, another billion or so years we might be closer. There are other possible avenues besides science to use in search of these answers.

 

[danyopizzle]

Dude thats awsome thanks for telling me that tells me so much, for a second before reading your blog i started to believe that god was the origin

 

[phi_gazer]

One entry in a forum is enough to change your mind?<br /><br />

 

[danyopizzle]

i dont answer those questions cause you should read the whole conversation!!! ive been through this stuff my whole life and did some deep dang studieng to get it right

 

[alokmohan]

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw1155605041498B212&newslett=1&em=52618a6a20060815ah

 

[qso1]

danyopizzle:<br />How does the big bang make sense to scientists?<br /><br />Me:<br />It makes sense because of the evidence they have. Not a lot of evidence. Cosmology is always at the very edge when it comes to science and evidence. The evidence is largely mathematical. The observed evidence is phenomenon such as the cosmic background radiation.<br /><br />But as in any science thats on the edge. Theories change and big bang is theory last I checked. Theories change with the discovery of new evidence.<br /><br />danyopizzle:<br />where did existence start? Where did space even come from???<br /><br />Me:<br />Here are two questions that only the cosmologists at the very edge will even attempt to answer. The answers vary and are always accompanied by disclaimers such as theoretical or hypothetical.<br /><br />This because nobody knows the actual answers and I doubt we ever will. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Where did space even come from??? </font><br /><br />There are two types of space. Energized (energy fields within the BB space) and Non-Energized space (which some physists call NOTHING). This energized space which is finite and continously growing (Newton's 1st Law) expands within the nonenergized space (NOTHING) which we call infinite. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[enigma10]

When its all said and done, its still a theory, no matter how much you study. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[qso1]

Kyle_baron:<br />There are two types of space. Energized (energy fields within the BB space)...<br /><br />Me:<br />I hadn't heard this in the cosmological community before but it makes the most sense to me, in part because I think of it in roughly these terms. Do you by chance have a link to anything referring to this? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

the big bang is conceived in religion by a priest, and then coerced into validity by accepted "officially scientific" theoretical precepts that bear no resemblance to anything tenable or real. the BB is as real as dark matter, dark energy, and the purple people eater. <br /><br />the origins, if any, of the "universe" are unknown and will probably never be known. <br /><br />as well, it is mathematically impossible to have a "point-space" --that without dimension-- to then have infinite density of any given volume. such a premise is self-contradictory, and the big bang is as erroneous as a 3 dollar bill. <br /><br />as well, science is conveniently "unaccountable" for anything prior to the BB, so there is no expectation from anyone to actually explain themselves when pushing the big bang idea onto others. <br /><br />there is myriad double-speak and impressive sounding "data" that leads right down to the first nano-moment of creation, all based upon a grandiose house of cosmological cards. and i'm sure after this post, a lot of those cards will be shown. <br /><br />among the sacred cows are CMBR and redshift. so bring it on. <br />