The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is the point of origin still present in the Universe and will we ever find it?  (Read 6559 times)

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
The place where it all started, big bang and such,

Is it still there?
Did we find it already?
Can we find and how?

Is our galaxy closer the the center or the edge?

You can find a map of the universe here (not for the slow internet connections among us)
« Last Edit: 14/08/2009 10:57:23 by Nizzle »


 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Take a look at this: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

Of course it could be that there was a centre, and all matter is expanding at a relative rate, this would give the appearance of all matter moving away from us at a relative speed. This presupposes that matter further from the centre is travelling faster than that nearer the centre.

You must also come to terms with my hypothesis, that there are no dimensions. These are man derived for the purpose of measuring. We say 'space' & ‘time’, which gives the notion of a specific area and period. I prefer 'boundless void'.

At the point of the big bang, matter began to expand into this void, creating what we now call 'space'. It appears that all matter is moving away from us at a speed relative to its distance from us. But we could all still be travelling in the same general direction.



But the fact is we can only see a very limited portion of the universe. If we could see 20 billion ly+, we might see matter on the other side of the big bang, travelling in the opposite direction to us at two or three times the expected speed for such a distant object. If we are some 12b ly from the centre any object on the other side of the big bang would be travelling away from us at such a speed, that its speed added to our speed means its light may never reach us.

I do not suggest that there was one big bang. There could have been many and more yet to come, but the distances between these central points of expansion might be in the order of 100010 billion ly, give or take a few 100 billion ly. Our ‘universe’ may be but a mere hatchling by comparison to others.

Doubtless, many will disagree with me, even think I am a brainless moron, but I am a simple man, looking in on science from a peasant’s point of view. Sometimes I wonder if scientists over-complicate things and thus miss the obvious, because it is ‘just to easy’.
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Don_1, i'm fairly sure space and time do exist. i'm a newbie to physics, but i just read this great book for people like us that explains the basics (and more) in a really accessible form. i won't waste my time trying to convince you that there are dimensions because i simply could not give you convincing evidence or write in way to convey my understanding of it without paraphrasing, but this book is really great at explaining why there are. it's called "Quantum theory cannot hurt you" by Marcus Chown, ISBN 978-0-571-23546-9. chapter 9 deals with space-time and gravity. it really is well written, you should take a look ^^ if you don't want to buy it, you could read that chapter at your local bookstore or perhaps library. the original poster's question is also answered in the book, but explores why throughout rather than in a single chapter.
« Last Edit: 14/08/2009 17:10:01 by glovesforfoxes »
 

Offline Blane

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Well, if the universe started out as a point and then expanded to its present size, isn't the starting point now everywhere?  ;D
 

Offline John Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
I once read in Stephen Hawkin's 'A Brief History of Time' that the galaxies are travelling apart much like the currents in a currant bun while it is being cooked. He said the currants all spread apart as the bun expands but they always remain evenly distributed throughout. This means that there isn't a single central place from which everything is propelled. But, rather, the centre is everywhere because every point can be said to have every other point travelling away from it.

In the cake analogy, the cake is space and the currents are the galaxies and other bodies. The galaxies aren't so much born "in" the space but "with" the space.

The picture below illustrates the common misconception of there being a 'starting point'.
 

 
 
« Last Edit: 14/08/2009 19:08:29 by John Chapman »
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: Don_1
You must also come to terms with my hypothesis, that there are no dimensions. These are man derived for the purpose of measuring. We say 'space' & ‘time’, which gives the notion of a specific area and period.
I’ve seen this viewpoint quite often and I disagree with it myself. The term “dimension” refers to concepts that we use to describe and quantify what we observe in nature. If what we are describing has to do with configuration of one or more bodies then we are referring to “spatial” ideas. I’m going to assume that you understand what I mean when I use the term “space/spatial”. If a number is used to quantify events then we are referring to temporal. I’m also going to assume that you know what I mean when I use the term “time/temporal”.  It is the “phenomena” we are referring to when we use those words and not the words themselves. The descriptions arrived in the universe when man did. However the phenomena existed from the beginning of the universe.
Quote from: Don_1
At the point of the big bang, matter began to expand into this void, creating what we now call 'space'. It appears that all matter is moving away from us at a speed relative to its distance from us. But we could all still be travelling in the same general direction.
For that to be meaningful you’d have to be able to detect a preferred direction. I.e. if we were to analyze the motion of our galaxy (the Milky Way) from another galaxy far removed then as observed from that galaxy the Milky Way and nearby galaxies would be traveling in the same direction. But if observed from another galaxy its possible that the Milky Way would be moving in a different direction from its nearby galaxies.
Quote from: Don_1
Sometimes I wonder if scientists over-complicate things and thus miss the obvious, because it is ‘just to easy’.
Only the very bad ones. Scientists **always** look for the simplest explanation first and never otherwise because its “just too easy”. Almost all physicists believe that the simpler a theory is the better it is. I can’t imagine how anyone could conclude otherwise.
 

lyner

  • Guest
JC
Those pictures show that Don1's concept of "the other side of the Big Band" is not valid. In the second set of pictures, the spreading out is merely proportional to the separation. Everything recesses just as you'd expect it to.
The"obvious" thing, after some reasoned thought, is what people go for at the moment. It fits the facts. If anyone wants to come up with anything better they will need to do some very deep thorkus on it - it will not take five minutes.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Well, if the universe started out as a point and then expanded to its present size, isn't the starting point now everywhere?  ;D

Yup, if the origin was a geometrical point, this is exactly the right way to think of it.  The clever bit is figuring out a mechanism whereby something that has zero size can be coerced into adopting a non-zero size, or at least giving the appearance and effect of having done so.
 

Offline Maniax101

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
I'd like to think of the cosmic background radiation as the "surface" of the point that banged.
So everywhere we look, in any direction, we see the surface of the big bang...
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
But we see the surface from the inside. Like we would be inside a balloon, no?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
I'd like to think of the cosmic background radiation as the "surface" of the point that banged.
So everywhere we look, in any direction, we see the surface of the big bang...
So then there would be a preferred inertial frame of reference that marks the inertial frame of the big-bang event. I can see that. It even feels good to find something in the universe that is the same throughout its vastness.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
I think a better way to think of it is as a 2-dimensional being/person existing on the surface of an inflating balloon. If you think of the universe as a 4-dimensional version of this 3 dimensional illustration you can see that the is no special centre from which the universe started. The whole surface was created as soon as the balloon started to expand and, prior to that, was a singularity.
 

Offline Maniax101

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
But we see the surface from the inside. Like we would be inside a balloon, no?

Well, no, the surface would still be a sphere and we are looking "down" on it. Problem is that it's all around - there is no up and down. Like and inverted balloon.
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Ah, so we're inside a balloon, which has it's own outside turned inside, which is what we see as CBR, right? [;p]
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
You can't do this by thinking in 3 dimensions - at least with current models. See my previous post.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
I'd like to think of the cosmic background radiation as the "surface" of the point that banged.
So everywhere we look, in any direction, we see the surface of the big bang...

I think this is another very good way of visualising it.  What people must remember though is that when you refer to a 'surface' you're using a 2D analogy of a 3D phenomenon.  Thus, we're not on the inside or outside of the surface of the balloon but exist solely within the surface of the balloon; from our point of view there is no inside or outside.
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
If I have an antenna that emits a single photon and the photon has been traveling for 13.7 billion years does it still have a starting? Yes it does. So why wouldn't the BB still have a starting point?
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
You can't do this by thinking in 3 dimensions

Yup, exactly.

The expanding balloon model is a pretty good three-dimensional space-time illustration of what seems to be going on in four-dimensional space-time, but it's vital to remember that in this model there are only two spatial dimensions; no space exists inside or outside of the balloon.  It's not just that the space is 'empty' - the space itself isn't there.

What we see in our four-dimensional space-time as the spatial inside and outside of the balloon actually represents the temporal dimension in the model, with the inside of the balloon representing the past and the outside representing the future.

I think that the biggest problem with the expanding balloon model is that because it uses a 3D structure, many people have difficulty in not thinking in terms of three spatial dimensions.

In this respect the even simpler model of a circle that expands over time may be better and easier to understand because it forces you to be abstract right from the start.  In this model you reduce the total number of dimensions down to just two, one spatial and one temporal.  With just two dimensions to play with then, the spatial size of the universe becomes the circumference of the circle and it now becomes the areas inside and outside the line of the circle, instead of the volumes inside and outside the surface of the balloon, that now represent time.

Both the expanding balloon and the expanding circle models show how there is no spatial center to the universe, because neither the circumference of the circle nor the surface of the balloon have any start or end points, but they also both show how they do have a center of origin in space-time i.e. when the radius of the balloon or circle was 0, corresponding to the point of the Big Bang.
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
so we are the balloon, and the air inside the balloon represent the past...
and the air outside is the future, and since the balloon is inflating, it travels from past to future. Am i right now? [:|]
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Yup, you got it.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length