The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Big Bang - Is it over?  (Read 9401 times)

Offline JustMe7775

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
The Big Bang - Is it over?
« on: 03/03/2006 19:55:32 »
The theory is that there was a Big Bang.  I however believe that the Big Bang is still happening.  It's not a single event that had already happened, but a constant event that continues to happen.  The reason the universe is not only expanding but also speeding up is because we are still in the event.  Not to mention that the center of the universe where the beginning of the Big band occurred, is constantly pulsing with expanding pressures.

Imagine for a moment the surface of a pool of water.  Now throw a pebble into the center of it.  You get ripples from the center.  The one event produced multiple suggestive events.  Now think of the big bang as an enormous body of matter that is constantly shrinking and expanding, shrinking and expanding, like a pair of lungs breathing in and out.  Each time it shrink more and expands more, until it shrinks so much that the next expansion is not an expansion at all, but and explosion.  Now hit the pause button right in the beginning of the explosion.  If you could find out little galaxy then our little Sol System and our little planet with in it.  You would see that even though you've paused the frame we are still moving.  You must that just because we don't "See" and explosion doesn't mean it's not happening.    The explosion of the big bang is not only possible, but still happening.  The end point of this event has yet to occur.  It's possible to theorize that it will never occur.  It will all ways be constant.  Let's go back to the paused image in our minds.  If you were to advance this one frame, it would be like advancing through the entire cycle of our solar systems evolution from dust cloud to the supernova of our sun.  The point is that everything is relative.  the father you pull back to envision space the slower time moves in comparison. Think of it this way.  You are standing in front of a wall with a rubber ball.  You bounce the ball off the wall.  The time it takes to bounce the ball off the wall and back into your hand changes as you move away from the wall.  Now let's re invent the clock for a second.  Let not think of time as night and day, or the movement of an object around another object, but instead like a wave of energy emanated from a central point.  The further away from that central point the longer it takes that interval of time to get to you.  Now go back and picture the pool of water again.  You've tossed the pebble into it and the ripples began.  Not imagine that they never stop coming from the center of the pool.  They are consistent and precise.  But as they move away from the center those waves get wider.  They double as they move away in three dimensions Energy, Mass, and Time.
So in conclusion the reason the universe seems to be speeding up is because we are still within the begining of the event that creates the universe.

So what does everyone think?
« Last Edit: 27/03/2006 11:45:54 by daveshorts »


 

Offline heikki

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #1 on: 04/03/2006 08:35:47 »
.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2006 06:20:20 by heikki »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #2 on: 04/03/2006 14:08:26 »
I think you're twisting definitions somewhat. An explosion is an explosion... full stop. What happens subsequently is the aftereffect of that explosion.
Take the example of a nuclear bomb. It explodes; creating a fireball, heat front, & winds. Those winds are not part of the explosion itself, they are an aftereffect caused by the explosion. The fires that are caused by the heat front are not part of the explosion, merely a consequence. If the bomb were detonated in a desert where there is no combustible material, there would be no fires. Therefore they cannot be a part of the explosion itself.
To scientists, the Big Bang was an instantaneous event - as you likened it to a pebble being thrown into a pool. The pebble actually hitting the water would be the Big Bang, the consequent ripples would not be.
So, to say that the Big Bang is continuing is fallacious. The continued expansion of the universe is a consequence of the initial event, not an indication that the event is still occurring.

 
quote:
The point is that everything is relative. the father you pull back to envision space the slower time moves in comparison.


Do you have any evidence to support this claim? As far as I'm aware, distance has no effect on time. Are you suggesting that events we see 12 billion light years away appear to be happening slower than they would were they happening closer to us?

 
quote:
The further away from that central point the longer it takes that interval of time to get to you. Now go back and picture the pool of water again. You've tossed the pebble into it and the ripples began. Not imagine that they never stop coming from the center of the pool. They are consistent and precise. But as they move away from the center those waves get wider. They double as they move away in three dimensions Energy, Mass, and Time.
So in conclusion the reason the universe seems to be speeding up is because we are still within the begining of the event that creates the universe.


You seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat. You say that the further away we are, the slower things happen; yet this is also causing things to speed up.
Also, yes, it will take longer to get to you the further away you are; but that doesn't mean the interval of time that is reaching you has got any longer. To use your example of the ball against a wall - whether you are viewing that from 2 metres away or 20,000 light years,  the ball will still appear to take the same amount of time to rebound.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2006 14:21:56 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline JustMe7775

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #3 on: 06/03/2006 21:51:01 »
Yes, I'm sorry I do have a bit of an issue with explaining myself well.  My limited vocabulary and insecurity with spelling oft cause me to be misunderstood.  (and remember please there has been no real research into this, just some long stairs into space. no pun intended).

Let's forget everything that I've said for a moment and just think of the actual big bang.  How are we to know if, to use your metaphor of an atomic explosion, the firery explosion has really ended?  As you zoom into the atomic explosion (meaning to the atomic level) doesn't it become increasingly difficult to see that everything is exploding around you.  And in relation if we are to assume (not that it's correct) that the universe is infinit couldn't the explosion itself also be infinit?  

Again, I'm hardly one to question what educated scientist have been able to discover, however when I've got an idea on something I like to ask questions.  And that's all this was really.  Just to get a response on my idea from a more educated audience then say my family and friends.
Thanks for you time.
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #4 on: 06/03/2006 22:13:19 »
That is ok, you seem to have an open mind about things in which case that is fine, we will work out what you mean and see if it makes sense. (sorry the forum is a little tense at the moment, which isn't your fault)

I could read what you are saying in 2 ways:

-There are a series of big bangs and big crunches in each one throwing off some stuff on the outside (like your waves) and we are somewhere in that.

-There are a series of big bangs and crunches where everything goes in and out.


 

Offline JustMe7775

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #5 on: 06/03/2006 22:55:43 »
Ok, I see now where I made my error translating from thought to word.  I somehow combined to concepts one dealing with time (the wave) and one dealing with the big bang.  I know that I was possably trying to relate the two by using one to give reference to the other.  

Ok, Let me see if I can do this differently. hehe..

One explosion (the big bang) in a big picture would look to be smooth and very much like you would imagine the big bang to look, a large space explosion.  However when you reduce your relative view down to the size of a galaxy in relation to the universe you would no longer see the "explosion" of the big bang.

Basically what spiked this idea in my head was the conversation on the expansion of the universe seeming to speed up as opposed to slowing down as was expected.  It just seemed somewhat assumed that the Big Band has occured and we are in the affter affects.  Where as I think that we are still in the begining of the big bang.  If you were to look at a bullet being shot out of a gun.  I would say that we are still in the barrel just after the hammer has struck.  This would explain why the universe seems to be expanding at an increasing rate, just as the bullet speeds up as it travels down the barrel of the gun.  

My points on time I think are only understandable in my own mind, and is (incredably) better explained by einstein's theory of relativity.  Of which I only really know the concept, not so much the whole thing.  :)

p.s.  Why are the forums tense? online psychology is interesting to me.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #6 on: 07/03/2006 08:12:35 »
Two peripheral points here, JustMe.

1. The Big Bang is not still continuing, by definition. Cosmologists define the Big Bang as that initial creation of time and space.
2. Related to that, using the analogy of any kind of explosion is hugely misleading. The BigBang was not the expansion of matter into space, but the creation of space and time. It is space that is expanding, so in that sense, you are correct, we are still in the midst of the BigBang.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #7 on: 07/03/2006 10:04:29 »
JustMe - I think I understand better what you mean now. I too often have trouble explaining my thoughts.

Although the analogy of an explosion isn't totally accurate, it does help a bit. After an explosion, any expelled matter soon begins slowing down; but at the start it is obviously accelerated. I think what you're getting at is that we are not as far into the evolution of the universe as may be thought. Not that it hasn't been around as long as we thought, just that we are still in the initial accelerating phase.
I can't be certain as I'm not a physicist, but I would imagine the initial event would have needed to be much greater than we imagine and I would think the background radiation would have a different temperature if that were the case.
 

Offline JustMe7775

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #8 on: 07/03/2006 16:18:00 »
You understand me perfectly Doc.  :)
Yes that's exactly what I ment, we are still in the initial accelerating phase.  
But I do have a question, (again I'm no scientist, nore educated in these matters beyond my own readings) Can you explain why it is that we must/should be slowing down?  I understand that gravity slows objects, but would that slow the movement of a galaxy down?  especially considering the distances between them?  If so isn't it possable that the "Dark Energy" is simply a lack of a gravitational field?  I mean I think I understand that with in a galaxy all objects are effected by one another, but does that include galaxies seperated by such great distances?  If I'm completly off here, please let me know what to look up to better understand.  I don't mind searching for information, but I find I understand concepts better in conversation then reading.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #9 on: 07/03/2006 19:16:29 »
Galaxies do exert gravitational influence over each other. The Magellanic clouds are being pulled into our own galaxy, and at some time in the future we will collide with the Andromeda galaxy.
We and several galaxies in our neighbourhood form what's known as a local cluster. Local clusters, in general, move together (by together, I mean they move through the universe together). Going larger scale you get super clusters. These are aggregations of local clusters and, similarly, tend to move as a group. On an even larger scale, super clusters seem to be arranged along threads, or filaments. It has been conjectured that these filaments may be cosmic strings (not to be confused with superstrings, which are totally different beasties) which are remnants of fracturing in the very early universe.
 

Offline JustMe7775

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #10 on: 07/03/2006 21:51:13 »
Ok, well I obviously can't say that I totally understand the influence of gravity between galaxies.  But I'm not sure how that is prooven?  Is it simply the movement of objects, or theory?  I mean (I don't know, please educate me if I'm wrong) it's not like you can actually see galaxies move, is it?  I've seen a few pictures from hubble that had some incredable images of a cluster of galaxies, but I would think if it takes us so much time to spin around the sun, it would take a substantially longer amount of time for a galaxy to show movement.  Which kind of goes back to what I was talking about concerning the initial phase of the big bang.  If I'm right, and it does take an incredably long time for movement of that size to take place it would then have to translate the same way to the even larger object of the universe. (I hope my point is getting relayed).
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #11 on: 07/03/2006 22:13:11 »
Yes, their motion can be detected & measured. I'm not sure whether it can be done using parallax as the angles would be minute. But certainly the motion can be measured by the red shift of light coming from them. The faster they are moving away from us, the more the red shift. By comparing where, I believe, the hydrogen spectral lines appear with where those lines would be were the galaxy motionless relative to us, the rate of recession can be calculated. All objects of a similar distance are moving away from us at the same rate. The proves that the universe is indeed expanding.
I know there have been surveys, the results of which are 3D computer maps of the universe. On these, the clustering of galaxies can be readily seen; as can the alignment of superclusters on the cosmic filaments. The distances between super clusters is unbelievably immense; many times the distance between local clusters. And the speed at which they are moving away from each other is fantastically high.
 

Offline JustMe7775

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #12 on: 13/03/2006 19:26:11 »
That is all very interesting, I will have to look further into "Red Shift".  I've heard it mentioned before however there was some speculation as to its relevance as a measuring device.  Something about the light being filtered by space objects (i.e. dust, gas, etc.).

Thanks for showing me the light (whether it's red or not) 9^}
 

Offline alltaylorred

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #13 on: 31/01/2009 01:55:20 »
i pondered this very question not two days ago, wondering if i had been to first to think of such a concept (although i knew someone would have thought about it). i searched google for "is the big bang still happening?", and now, i am a member of this site.

now, down to business.
im sure everyone who is as interested in the physics of the universe as i am is aware of the concept that all of the matter in the universe is a set amount. it is not, as far as we can tell, infinite.
therefore one can picture the universe as say, a basketball.
in order for such a thing to expand, some sort of matter, in this case air, must be continually pumped into the ball to keep it going. if this source stops, then the expansion stops. unless of course the universe is stretching, which one would assume could be detected.
on the explosion part, about how its "full stop".
that is only supposeing that the "big bang" was indeed an explosion of sorts.
i am not an expert on these matters by any means (very few are), let alone physics. but i do have enough of an understanding to fight for my opinion.
also, the recent unidentifiable distant space "noises" could indeed be the sound of that very pumping process.
this is still a fresh idea in my head, i may be able to explain myself a little better at a later date. as i continue to read books on entanglement and all that jazz, everything slowly seams to be coming together...
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #14 on: 31/01/2009 14:44:42 »
That is all very interesting, I will have to look further into "Red Shift".  I've heard it mentioned before however there was some speculation as to its relevance as a measuring device.  Something about the light being filtered by space objects (i.e. dust, gas, etc.).

Thanks for showing me the light (whether it's red or not) 9^}
It is generally dismissed by mainstream physicists, but many of us suspect that light from distant sources may undergo changes by interacting with ionic space debris. If those changes do happen, the light becomes suspect as a speed indicator. 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

The Big Bang - Is it over?
« Reply #14 on: 31/01/2009 14:44:42 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums