Question about Big Bang

[heist]

How accurate is the ants-on-a-balloon model analogy of the Big Bang and expansion of the universe? It effectively explains how we can appear to be at the center of the universe. However, assuming this model is accurate, would the universe then be circumnavigable? I suppose the expansion of the universe would be much faster than anything attempting to circumnavigate it; but if we ignore this would it be theoretically possible?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">How accurate is the ants-on-a-balloon model analogy of the Big Bang and expansion of the universe? It effectively explains how we can appear to be at the center of the universe. However, assuming this model is accurate, would the universe then be circumnavigable? I suppose the expansion of the universe would be much faster than anything attempting to circumnavigate it; but if we ignore this would it be theoretically possible?</font><br /><br />In this principle you describe, we may circumnavigate what we see as the observable universe, so yes. However, it is likely that as we approach what we are able to see that we see something we didn't expect. Perhaps as we travel 13.7 billion light years in our theoretical journey that we approach a dense medium. It may be that the galaxies within 10 billion light years may be compared to a vapor in the midst of more condensed entities existing 13.7 billion light years away from us. If these condensed entities are multiple and round, then there are perhaps may different possible points of circumnavigation. After all circumnagivating something only makes sense when the geometry is elliptical. It is hard to concieve of path of <i>circum</i>navigation in a hyperbolic (open) space with practically inifnite width. The alternative of infinite width is a hall of mirrors effect, so theoretically, circumnavigation in hyperbolic (open) space is possible under the context of a finite pattern (like in the asteriods video game). However the hall of mirrors effect defies scientific observation and therefore not subject to being observed. Theories about about a hall of mirror universe may make falsifiable implications, but the idea of a hall of mirrors universe, solely, is not falsifiable, and therefore not subject to scientific scrutiny.

 

[doubletruncation]

If the universe had a high enough matter density you could show that it would be closed, meaning that if you went in any direction you could eventually come back to yourself. This would mean that the ants on a balloon analogy (if extended to 3d) would actually be very good. Back in the '70s people used to do searches for pairs of quasars or galaxies that appeared to be the same but appeared on opposite sides of the sky.<br /><br />The current view though is that the universe is flat rather than closed, in that case a better analogy would be a flat sheet of rubber with ants on it that you can stretch. You can only see a finite distance in the universe (that is you can't see out to a distance where light would have taken longer than the age of the universe to reach you) so we can only really know that the universe is flat out to that horizon, whether some curvature appears outside that horizon we don't know. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

Sorry, I mean, you can stretch the sheet of rubber - the ants stay fixed <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

So, the ants are perpetually on drugs? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

yes, you have to coax them to say on the rubber sheet somehow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

The stretched rubber sheet analogy is commonly used to represent the effects of time on space in the presence of mass. It is most effective when used to illustrate the effect of Black Holes on space and time.<br /><br />The Balloon Analogy is used to illustrate the concept of the expansion of time and space in the universe.<br /><br />Both analogies are seriously flawed because it is devilishly difficult to create a 2-dimensional representation of higher dimensions.<br /><br />I like the balloon model of the expanding universe though -- <i>with a few important caveats:</i> <br /><br />1. The only perspective which has any validity is one from inside of the expanding balloon. The concept of existence outside the "Universe" balloon has no meaning and is an impossible perspective. <br /><br />2. The balloon is the size of an infinitely small singularity and remains so; but time and space are infinitely being created and expanding within the singularity balloon. <br /><br />3. Every point inside the balloon shares the perspective of viewing itself to be located at the very center of the balloon -- this is the only valid perspective. <br /><br />4. Every point in the singularity balloon also shares the perspective that it is at the very edge of the balloon -- if it could reach "c" velocity! (The edge of the universe is right in front of your nose, but you have to travel at the speed of light to get there.) <br /><br />Other than these insignificant little exceptions, I like the balloon model of the universe! <br />

 

[alokmohan]

I dont unretand what current theory says universe is flat.Any link?Are you coming back to flat earth age?

 

[doubletruncation]

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html<br /><br />In particular check out the last two sections on the Geometry of the Universe and Measurements from WMAP. <br /><br />Flat = /> if you corrected for the expansion of the universe (i.e. worked in co-moving coordinates), two initially parallel lasers would neither converge nor diverge (on average). So simple geometry rules can be used, like the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees and the distance between two points (x1,y1,z1) and (x2,y2,z2) is sqrt((x1-x2)^2+(y1-y2)^2+(z1-z2)^2). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

That is not what flat earth means.A flat earth has two dimensions only.

 

[doubletruncation]

The geometry rules of flat, curved or saddle spaces as visualized with two dimensional surfaces can easily be extended to 3 dimensions. When we say the universe is flat we mean its flat in 3 dimensions. So if you shine two lasers parallel to each other and correct for the expansion/contraction of the universe, you would find that they always remain parallel. If the universe were closed like a sphere so that if you went in any direction you could eventually come back to the same place you started, you would find that the lasers beams converge and cross. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

Flat universe is a misnomer. One could have instead "level universe" as in light generally travels in a level, straight line and does not travel a curved path.

 

[derekmcd]

If I'm not mistaken, when the claim of the current 'flat' universe theory is presented, they add a disclaimer stating something to the effect that the 'observable' universe is flat... beyond that, there could still be curvature to it. In other words... If it is curved, the curvature is so small as to be undetectable by current technology in our little frame of reference that we have. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

It reminds me of old times when nobody believed that anything eists beyond the sea.Yo may fall down if you travel northwards.

 

[search]

You came up with several questions and I will give you the websites and a summary extrated on the main points you asked plus a little more (just take your time):<br /><br />1. Big bang ballon model (see also website in number 3):<br /><br />http://www.big-bang-theory.com/<br /><br />There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe. <br />Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.<br /><br />2. Expansion of the universe:<br /><br />http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ExpandUni.html<br /><br />Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which established the relationship between matter, space, time and gravity, governs modern cosmology's view of the universe. But when Einstein began to apply his theory to the structure of the universe, he was dismayed to find that it predicted either an expanding or contracting universe--something entirely incompatible with the prevailing notion of a static universe. In what he would later call "the greatest blunder of my life," Einstein added a term called the cosmological constant to his equations that would make his calculations consistent with a static universe.<br />Einstein admitted his mistake in 1929 when Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were, indeed, receding from the earth, and the further away they were,the faster they were moving. That discovery changed cosmology.<br /><br />3. Center of Univers

 

[alokmohan]

What is authenticity of the first website?You may see the website purported to be base by CERN.http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html.THERE WAS EXPLOSION MORE THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE.

 

[oscar1]

If 'space' did not exist prior to the big bang, than there must be a difference between 'space' and 'nothing'. What would that difference be?

 

[alokmohan]

There are many thing for which' before " makes no sense.Time and space are not two different things.Newtonian physics had stood firmly fo r centuries, it could explain observed facts.It could explain anything from domain of planets to the domain of electricity to the domain of heat.There was no sign in the crack down in the foundation----until 1881 ,when Albert Michlson started timing the propagation of light. It seemed obvious ,and the Newtonian laws so demanded,that if one measures the speed of light ,the result must depend on how one is moving or as rest. This caused long scientifis deductions that speed of light is independendant of observers motion. there after the term absolue space became nullified by theory of relativity.Once the concept of absolute space is out,I have not gone into analysis,our consept of space became spacetime,thus what was before spacetime is no question.Space and time are simultaneous .What was before big bang has no meaning.From angle of new physics it has no meaning.

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />Once the concept of absolute space is out,I have not gone into analysis,our consept of space became spacetime,thus what was before spacetime is no question.Space and time are simultaneous .What was before big bang has no meaning.From angle of new physics it has no meaning. </i><br /><br />I totally disagree. I believe Newton got it right, with his Absolute Space. His description defines the pre-BB space/no time perfectly. P.28 The Fabric of the Cosmos: "Absolute space in it's own nature without reference to anything external, remains always similar and unmovable." <br /><br />Two questions for you Alokmohan:<br />1. What existed 1 second before the so called Big Bang?<br />2. What exists 27 Septillion light years from us?<br /><br />Answer: Absolute Space (Nothing, or space with no time) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[oscar1]

I read Hawkin's popular books, where he also claims that 'the before the BB' is a no-go area. Yet, I do detect some hesitation in between the lines. And it is something like old-Roman arithmatic, where the zero is not used, for the logic reason that zero is nothing. However, for practical purposes we introduced the use of zero value in our time, i.e. although zero is nothing, it is nontheless functional, as a kind of bus-stop between positive and negative. Also, no one ranging from believing in a deity to being an agnost can accept that there was no fource around to create the universe. Last but not least, a 'Big Bang out of the absolute nothing' is a contradiction in terms, for it incorporates the end of the absolute nothing, as well as the beginning of something; i.e. even if the universe would crunch, or spread out into oblivion, something will have been, despite the then new state of the absolute nothing.

 

[oscar1]

How so 27 Septillion? Why not a plain simple single Decillion? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />The answer would be an 'either/or' though: either there are galaxies or chaotically arranged matter out there (we would in that case have to regard the universe to be infinite), or simply nothing, as in the same as before the Big Bang. Afterall, 'distance' could not exist in the unimaginable nothing either. <br /><br />

 

[search]

Hello alokmohan<br /><br />Regarding the authenticity of the website you can check on the bottom of the page of that website itself however I believe you are asking about the reliability of that website and I have posted here because I liked the simplicity and clarity to explain something which as been up to debate in the past 40years. <br /><br />Something which is becaming very clear in the scientific community but still not reaching the vast amount of people. It all has to do with the Old Big Bang Theory (from the 60s) based on a big hot explosion model and the new Big Bang Theory based on the inflationary model. <br /><br />I will try to be more precise when posting websites giving maybe some reference about it or why I chose it but sometimes I look to the content and if it gives a good, clear idea of what is asked I take it because many of the reliable, authentic websites lack clarity and use mathematical models which are not what many people ask for.<br /><br />However here is website which is both authentic and reliable about Big Bang:<br /><br />http://www.iau.org/Cosmology_Prize_2004.317.0.html<br /><br />Regarding the website you posted I believe you should check is reliability since it is not the websit of CERN (which you can go via http://press.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html) itself but a marketing website. Regarding CERN they say and I quote:<br /><br />"It was very important to remain flexible. For example, exploring particle physics at CERN meant working with one of the most complex, esoteric subjects in science. That doesn’t lend itself easily to visual explanations. Few people know what subatomic particles are, and the particles are impossible to see directly. We chose to tell this story through the people conducting and supporting the research, and through the complex and enormous tools used to investigate minu

 

[alokmohan]

THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION MORE THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE" .Agreed that was unimiginable explosion.Thats fine and I have nothing to contradict.<br /><br />

 

[alokmohan]

Since there is no absolute space and absolute time,and space and time came together,there can be nothing beyond big bang.

 

[oscar1]

I am sorry, but I am incapable of swallowing that. You see, if there are no such things as 'past' and 'future' beyond the Big Bang, then the Big Bang is forever; i.e. is the universe forever, and hence, is there either no Big Bang at all, or is there repeatedly and infinitely a Big Bang after a Big Crunch. The mere fact that we are, or only imagine this, is proof that there is no such thing as an absolute nothing.