Other side of big bang!

Dec 13, 2021
1
0
10
Maybe I'm being stupid, but, if we are looking back towards the beginnings of the big bang via James Webb telescope, would what we see to get to that point be the same on the other side of big bang. I.e. going away from us in the opposite direction...and therefore will never get to see it!
 
Maybe I'm being stupid, but, if we are looking back towards the beginnings of the big bang via James Webb telescope, would what we see to get to that point be the same on the other side of big bang. I.e. going away from us in the opposite direction...and therefore will never get to see it!
The current limitation for science goes to the point in time when atoms formed from primordial nuclei. This happened when the expansion reached a point when it all cooled to about 3000K, which allowed electrons to join with the nuclei (9 out of 10 were a single proton - hydrogen) that formed the first atoms. Because the universe, especially then, was so homogenous, this lower temperature took place throughout all of space so that atoms formed throughout the universe at essentially the same time.

The result of this event allowed light to go more than a few centimeters due to scattering events. The instant atoms formed, light no longer was scattered very much so it was free to travel.

Today, we see that same light that has had to come from farther and farther regions and, during this passage, it has redshifted due to the continual expansion of space. This wavelength is now in the microwave band and what we see is known as the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).

Recombination is the name science uses to describe the event of electrons combining with nuclei, though, in this initial case, a better term should be considered since there is no recombining but only an initial combining.

The time of this event was about 380,000 years after that first instant of the Big Bang.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,646
1,094
5,560
Just remember folks, 380,000 years after the postulated BB event, the universe is much smaller than the present, observable universe in astronomy. Cosmology calculators show the size to be some 80 million light years in diameter or so when the CMBR first appeared. An independent measurement verifying this small universe size when the CMBR appears is not published like measurements for stellar diameters of giant stars today or measurements like the solar parallax for the distance between Earth and Sun obtained during Mercury or Venus transits in the heliocentric solar system or stellar distances using stellar parallax method. I make a clear distinct between the size of the universe when the CMBR appears according to BB cosmology and other measurements that can be determined directly today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Yes, if the universe has been expanding, and is still expanding, then it's interesting how small it was during Recombination.

I make a clear distinct between the size of the universe when the CMBR appears according to BB cosmology and other measurements that can be determined directly today.
The variation in measurements today (i.e. expansion rate estimates) won't change that Recombination volume all that much, if you're implying something like that.

For this topic, it shouldn't matter, or am I missing something?

I liked the topic title as it brings out the point that the directly observable side of the Big Bang isn't before t=0 but t~380,000 years. Between those two time points is a result of interpolation allowable by physics. There is a chance, however, that some sort of neutrino scope might get invented to allows us observations at a very early age, though I won't hold my breath. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,646
1,094
5,560
Helio, your post #4 says, "The variation in measurements today (i.e. expansion rate estimates) won't change that Recombination volume all that much, if you're implying something like that."

This interpretation is circular reasoning. The math of recombination does not change the small volume of 3D space by much but we still lack an independent measurement(s) verifying this small size to the early universe like we have for stellar diameters as an example. Simply showing variations in the CMBR is not an independent size measurement for the early, small universe size like we have for other direct measurements in astronomy today. I suspect many people do not realize this about the BB cosmology.
 
Aug 14, 2020
706
125
1,060
There is a problem I don't think anyone else has thought of, and I've brought it up before. That is, besides my opinion that the background constant equals '1' and is infinity. I will harp on it again.

Start with the (Planck) BC / BB. There is overwhelming light at every point. Encompassing every point(!), mind you. Does that light go out? No. Light continued, and continues, to encompass every point. There is no break in it in space and time. So, how is light just arriving here from 13.8 billion years ago, as light from a nakedly singular beginning of universe, when light has been here, at every point of the universe, continuously for 13.8 billion years (as the collapsed horizon of space and time infinity (having its own dimensional constancy of relative physicality that doesn't, and won't, ever show up as the infinity it is . . . even of time)?

In other words, all the light before light, that has been arriving at every point (that has been at every point, encompassing every point), going backward in time into infinities of time. Light said to be arriving here from a distance of 13.8 billion years (that cauldron of chaos would not permit it but say it does) would be 1-dimensionality drawing out of a multi-dimensionality. Exactly like light and all other physics here locally, it would be a future that in its own right already had a past (an infinity of pasts), as well as having a continuing future to the always dark universe 'average' point of t=0 (Now) (the 4th dimension of space . . . thus the point; the '0'-point).

The point is, though, there never has been a lack of incoming light to any point, already arrived at any point, including from the farthest reaches to the collapsed horizon of infinity. I mean, from a trillion years ago and more light was reaching from the collapsed infinity horizon constant (t='1') of 13.8 billion light years across the distance. It happens to be a constant of Planck Horizon.

Light before light. Gravity before gravity. Space-time before space-time. . . countless numbers of equivalent 4-dimensional spaces-times (sic), like equivalent masses-energies, in rank and file, so to speak, totaling a cauldron of universe 'chaos' ('uncertainty'). Just as with dark universes' t=0 (Now), the observable universe shows nothing of any true dimensions and dimensionality. It wouldn't of course, since with all distance going away from anywhere it seems to flatten out the look of the universe to a smoothly flat picture (a 'photo' constant universe: that photo constant being one of universe in endless beginning, the totaling up -- the merger / flattening -- to '1' of endless beginnings).

Thus, there would be no other side to a horizon constant of (Planck) Big Crunch (M) / Big Bang (E) equivalency. It's sort of like the Earth's horizons that have no other side to them since we are always in those horizons and, thus, can never reach them (they always remaining distantly constant to us) much less go beyond them. That horizon, too, would always open to a traveler since it is always opening in one dimensionality of it, always closing in another (Schrodinger's cat).
 
Last edited:
Simply showing variations in the CMBR is not an independent size measurement for the early, small universe size like we have for other direct measurements in astronomy today. I suspect many people do not realize this about the BB cosmology.
I wasn't referring to direct CMBR measurements, but the variation in the estimates for things like the expansion rate, which effects the time frame for Recombination.

The physics is well established, I would think, for how and when atoms forms. About 3000K is the temperature, for instance, given the estimated density and composition of nuclei during that event.

I make a clear distinct between the size of the universe when the CMBR appears according to BB cosmology and other measurements that can be determined directly today.
I'm unclear what you're claiming here. Are you saying we have distinct direct measurements that counter BB cosmology?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,646
1,094
5,560
Helio, reference your post #7. What I said about the size of the universe when the CMBR first appears as some 80 or 82 million light years across, does not have any independent method of measuring this size other than circular reasoning using the recombination math that says the universe was very small then and the cosmology calculators require this size. Today in stellar evolution, calculations showing a red giant star said to be 25 solar radii, have independent direct measurements of stellar diameters to support the red giant model, not just circular reasoning based upon some math. This testing methodology does not apply to cosmology apparently when it comes to accepting the small universe size when the CMBR appears in the BB model. The same applies to the very large size of the universe today because the CMBR redshift is 1100 or so (and no spectroscopic measurement supports this independently). This universe is now some 46 billion light years radius from Earth. That volume of space cannot be observed and is expanding faster than c velocity. Again, no independent measurement verifying this in BB model. Such model interpretation must be clearly presented to the public, not obfuscated as some reports do.
 
Last edited:
Helio, reference your post #7. What I said about the size of the universe when the CMBR first appears as some 80 or 82 million light years across, does not have any independent method of measuring this size other than circular reasoning using the recombination math that says the universe was very small then and the cosmology calculators require this size.
How is applying nuclear physics to the Recombination event "circular reasoning"? Direct measurements, of course, are superior to indirect measurements. We can't directly observe a black hole but we can observe it in great detail indirectly, especially if its accretion disk is emitting x-rays, or a star is orbiting rapidly around it.

Today in stellar evolution, calculations showing a red giant star said to be 25 solar radii, have independent direct measurements of stellar diameters to support the red giant model, not just circular reasoning based upon some math.
I suspect you don't actually mean "circular reasoning" here. A calculation that helps lead to a hypothesis must be testable either directly or indirectly, though directly is always better, of course. That's the SM. The observation may introduce some nuance and the hypothesis might get tweaked, which means more observations are needed. Is that what you mean by "circular reasoning"?

This methodology does not apply to cosmology apparently when it comes to accepting the small universe size when the CMBR appears in the BB model. The same applies to the very large size of the universe today because the CMBR redshift is 1100 or so. This universe is now some 46 billion light years radius from Earth. That volume of space cannot be observed and is expanding faster than c velocity. Again, no independent measurement verifying this in BB model. Such model interpretation must be clearly presented to the public, not obfuscated as some reports do.
The direct measurements of the CMBR is the backbone of BBT. It's not just the direct measurements of the redshift but all the other measurements that confirmed the predictions made for the CMBR. These direct measurements made BBT mainstream. There are perhaps a dozen more direct measurements that favor BBT as well.

Our ability to measure regions that emitted light from regions of expansion that are faster than c doesn't violate GR. It was GR that allowed Lemaitre to offer us BBT. It is odd, admittedly, that this can be true, but it's not that hard to understand how light coming from FTL regions can reach us. As long as this light can reach a nearby region that is traveling slower than c, then we can see it.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,646
1,094
5,560
Going back to Helio's post #9, "The direct measurements of the CMBR is the backbone of BBT."

Yes, however, there are no direct measurements of the size of the universe when the CMBR fist appeared, e.g. the 80 or 82 million light year diameter size and there are no direct measurements of the size of the universe some 46 billion light years radius expanding faster than c. It does not matter what GR allows or GR is not violated by here concerning 3D space, this remains unverified in BB cosmology. The testing standards presented in post #9 when applied to my red giant example, indicates we can accept the calculation for red giants while ignoring stellar diameter measurements as an independent method confirming so no need to bother with this. In essence, the BBT becomes non-falsifiable by the methodology practiced today, my view on BBT.
 
Aug 14, 2020
706
125
1,060
More!:

What Shape Is the Universe? A New Study Suggests We’ve Got It All Wrong | Quanta Magazine

The caption underneath the illustration reads: "In a flat universe, as seen to the left, a straight line will extend out to infinity. A closed universe, right, is curled up like the surface of a sphere. In it, a straight line will eventually return to its starting point."

Think the sphere of the Gordian Knot. A straight ine in the sphere of the Knot extends to infinity, never returning to its exact starting point. Rod, to some extent, possibly unwittingly (though I'm pretty sure not), says this exact thing by simply bringing up expansion faster than the speed of light. It can be "curled up like the surface of a sphere," yet a straight line would never, could never, "eventually return to its starting point" (its exact starting point). And, to seemingly cross myself up without actually doing so, in both of them, across and after an infinity of space and time, a straight line will eventually return to its starting point of space and time, a universe identically the same in all particle positions and velocities: identically the same in all regards . . . that is, allowing for the straight line.

The universe is open / The universe is closed (the universe is open [and/or] closed (Schrodinger's cat)).
 
Last edited:
Yes, however, there are no direct measurements of the size of the universe when the CMBR fist appeared, e.g. the 80 or 82 million light year diameter size and there are no direct measurements of the size of the universe some 46 billion light years radius expanding faster than c. It does not matter what GR allows or GR is not violated by here concerning 3D space, this remains unverified in BB cosmology.
Yes, but I don't see why the diameter of the universe for any point in time needs to be considered unverified when it becomes almost obvious even without a direct measurement. As long as you know the expansion rate, within some reasonable margin of error, and you know the redshift of the CMBR, the size is no longer a mystery.

Also, you cannot separate BBT from GR. BBT is a solution of GR -- indeed that's how it got started . One can address, however, certain individual claims within BBT, like galaxy morphologies, without having to apply GR much, but the theory itself falls apart if GR offers no solution for it.

The testing standards presented in post #9 when applied to my red giant example, indicates we can accept the calculation for red giants while ignoring stellar diameter measurements as an independent method confirming so no need to bother with this.
Right, having two independent lines of objective evidence that both connect to the same dot, makes the scientific claim much stronger. BBT has about a dozen independent lines of evidence that form a confluence, hence its strength as a theory.

In essence, the BBT becomes non-falsifiable by the methodology practiced today, my view on BBT.
BBT makes so many predictions that it is highly exposed to astronomical observations. It is those very predictions that have been observed to match the theory that makes the theory strong.

There's no such thing, IMO, as a scientific theory that is non-falsifiable, else it's just metaphysics at best. Any theory of the entire cosmos will be full of falsifiable predictions. BBT struggled for decades with many of these claims that weren't easily verifiable, but later were. How the first stars could form given only H and He existed was one hurdle. If carbon is too unstable to form from fusion, where did it come from? Fred Hoyle, a major opponent of BBT, solved this big hurdle, along with the experimenter who ran the test and solved it in only 10 days, matching Hoyle's equations. There are many books addressing how observations match those BBT predictions.
 
Last edited:

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,646
1,094
5,560
Helio post #13 fails to document that BBT independent lines of evidence, most are various interpretations citing tiny deviations in the CMBR and a number of free parameters are used to get those results, including the abundance of H/He shown in BBT. Just because 3D space can expand faster than c velocity and does not violate GR, that does not mean nature is doing this today or in the past, there is a big difference here in standards of verification in my opinion.

Helio, you and I subscribe to different testing standards and methods of verification. As you said in post #13, "Yes, but I don't see why the diameter of the universe for any point in time needs to be considered unverified when it becomes almost obvious even without a direct measurement."

Today we see the CMBR near 3K (George Gamow and Ralph Alpher predicted 51K). It is not obvious that the CMBR we see today arose in a universe 80 to 82 million light years in diameter. That involves various assumptions and GR metrics extrapolated back in time accepted with high confidence, even though such a size cannot be verified today using telescopes like we can verify stellar diameters or the phases of Venus. BBT is a theory with evidence cited to support it, also various parts or components of the theory that remain unverified too.
 
Aug 14, 2020
706
125
1,060
We sit at a point of space in the center of a sphere observed to be 13.8 billion light years in from every point of the Planck Big Bang wall of the sphere. There is a point of space (Andromeda) about 2.3 million x 6 trillion miles from us that also observes itself to be 13.8 billion light years in from every point of the Planck Big Bang wall of the sphere. Continuing on, there is a point of space about 13.8 billion x 6 trillion miles from us that also observes itself to be 13.8 billion light years in from every point of the Planck Big Bang wall of the sphere. Drawing a straight line through that point, there is a point of space about 27.6 billion x 6 trillion miles from us that also observes itself to be 13.8 billion light years in from every point of the Planck Big Bang wall of the sphere. Continuing on, a point of space about 41.4 billion x 6 trillion miles from us that makes the same observation. A point of space about 55.2 billion x 6 trillion miles from us, the same. A point of space about 69 billion x 6 trillion miles from us, the same . . . a point of space about 13.8 trillion x 6 trillion miles from us, the same. . . and on and on to infinity.

And it isn't one directionally out from us where we sit at a point of space, but in sphere walls of space, spheres of space, center points of spheres of space, essentially infinitely directionally out from us in every directional point of sphere wall. Now how can you have a space so infinitely expansive out from us in points and spheres yet just be 13.8 billion light years, and 13 billion years, in from the (Planck) Big Crunch (M) | Big Vacuum (C^2 (c = c . . . squaring)) | (Planck) Big Bang (E) Horizon at every single point of said spatial infinity if time doesn't match up as the fourth dimension (> '0' < (0-point constant)) of said infinity of 4-d spaces that all told reduce to an infinite Universe (U) ('1' (background constant))?
----------------------------------

The potential of infinity is in the finite horizons of the universe we observe, and detect / The potential is, therefore, fulfilled (Schrodinger's cat).

The Cosmological Constant isn't '0'. It is Base2, '0' [and/or] '1' (Schrodinger's cat).
----------------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts