Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Abdelrahman Hussein on 16/12/2017 12:30:29
-
If I were at the Big Bang what would I see, would I see nothing, what do you think?
-
Things were very energetic, and most of the radiation was extreme - I would think it would be gamma regime and other short wavelengths; as there were no "atoms", would there be much visible light?
-
Can the question be framed as whether any contemporaneous record of any series of events might have been made in the moments following the Big Bang ?(which was not Zero Hour it seems)
When I see the word "see" I am often tempted to replace it with the all encompassing word "sense"
-
In terms of location, you are at the big bang, just 14 billion years late.
-
In terms of location, you are at the big bang, just 14 billion years lat
Can that statement be represented mathematically in a Spacetime diagram? Or do those diagrams only work for flat spacetime?
If am not talking gibberish of course.
-
Spacetime diagrams would not be useful in this situation as the number of events since the big bang is astronomical. Forgive the pun. A better way to visualise this is by looking at images of the most distant galaxies we can see and comparing those with our neighbouring galaxies.
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/03/most-distant-galaxy-hubble-breaks-cosmic-distance-record
-
Spacetime diagrams would not be useful in this situation as the number of events since the big bang is astronomical. Forgive the pun. A better way to visualise this is by looking at images of the most distant galaxies we can see and comparing those with our neighbouring galaxies.
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/03/most-distant-galaxy-hubble-breaks-cosmic-distance-record
Bored Chemist seemed to be implying a straight line vertical to the space axis. Why would this line not be able to show all the events leading back to the Big Bang?
Would not all these infinity of lines meet up at one time and space 14 billion years go?(at the "top" of the ct axis)
Of course with gravity as a practical consideration the whole thing is for the birds ,but in a theoretical way is that how the graph would look in flat space time?
Again in flat spacetime we would perhaps have no Big Bang event vs the present to model ::)
-
Since the Big Bang singularity was smaller than a photon of visible light, you wouldn't see anything.
-
Since the Big Bang singularity was smaller than a photon of visible light, you wouldn't see anything.
But could you "see" without recourse to visible light? Would light at higher frequencies be capable of leaving a record of events?
Are there phenomena other than em waves that could do the same job?
-
Spacetime diagrams are used to compare frames of reference and are not an historical record.
-
If I were at the Big Bang what would I see, would I see nothing, what do you think?
At the speed of light the universe will appear like a point instant. If we assume the primordial atom of the BB was based on matter and energy, and matter cannot travel at the speed of light, for the primordial atom to form; matter, it would need to be in a reference less than C. This means if you sat in the forming primordial atom, the universe will appear to expand, as though we suddenly went from C to C-. The universe would seem more spread than a point-instant.
This expansion is not technically a physical expansion of the universe. Rather is more analogous to zooming into space-time with a special microscope. The C setting has no magnification, while the C- setting needed for the primordial atom turns the knob one notch. If we took a microscope and zoomed in, we could see more and more detail, with the details appearing to be moving apart, but not really moving in a physical sense against a static background. This is similar to idea of space-time expanding, with matter tagging along.
Because the primordial atom is in a reference equivalent to C- on the space-time microscope, its time reference is very dilated compared to the earth reference. It like the reference in the center of a black hole. On the other hand, the earth reference does not yet exist, since the entire universe is only magnified to C- at the very beginning.
What this means is from the POV of the BB, the universe is evolving within a highly contracted and highly time dilated reference, such that millions of year in our earth reference will appear to take only seconds in the BB reference. The first day of universe may appear to have taken billions of years in the earth reference. Yet it only takes one day if you were riding the BB, which was the only real reference in town. The earth reference was imaginary back then.
Beyond the magnification of space, there would also be a magnification of time. The big bang visual would be like decelerating from warp speed.The universe would appear to expand and appear roughed in; advancing in time at an accelerated rate.
This analysis was based on my first original physics theory from 1987. It was called the relativistic slow down model. The model is based on observing the universe from the POV of the BB reference, instead of the earth reference. Since time is so dilated, things appear to happen quite fast compared to what we appear to see from earth. These things only appear to take a long time, because we live in a highly expanded earth reference. Our earth reference is convenient, but it does not tell the real story, that one gets using the original reference.
-
Spacetime diagrams are used to compare frames of reference and are not an historical record.
Interesting.
-
Since the Big Bang singularity was smaller than a photon of visible light, you wouldn't see anything.
But could you "see" without recourse to visible light? Would light at higher frequencies be capable of leaving a record of events?
Are there phenomena other than em waves that could do the same job?
For the first few moments of the Big bang, none of the fundamental forces even existed as separate entities, Hadrons (protons and neutrons) didn't form from the quark-gluon soup until after the first second. After ten sec, the first simple nuclei started to form, but Photons were still in thermo-equilibrium with matter, and the universe remained opaque to electromagnetic radiation of any frequency for ~380,000 yrs, and even then, the only photons were in the hydrogen radio part of the spectrum. It wasn't until the universe was ~150 million years old before light in the visible range began to even exist.
-
For the first few moments of the Big bang, none of the fundamental forces even existed as separate entities
What might have caused them to form their separate entities?Some disequilibrium in the earlier ongoing scenario?