The Big Bang: Where Did It Happen?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Aladdin, Dec 15, 2011.

  1. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Because there is no balloon. IT'S AN ANALOGY.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy

    The expanding surface of balloon represents space/time, and it is only meant to demonstrate the concept of space between objects expanding.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    One more time: the balloon analogy is a godaweful analogy.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,478
    That's part of the reason it is not such a good analogy: the analogy only applies to the surface of the balloon.
    If you start to consider the inside and outside of the balloon then the analogy breaks down.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    other things wrong with the balloon analogy when you look closer. the dots that represent galaxies also expand when the balloon is inflated and the curvature is all wrong.

    ;-)
     
  8. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    No. Instead of dots, use copper pennies, glued to the surface.

    And please, I beg of you, remember that this is JUST A FREEEKIN ANALOGY. An anology is not the thing. It's just an attempt to explain something by relating it to something else.
     
  9. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    And I have to ask you why???
    Why is it possible to expand something like universe, if there is no space outside the the universe? I simply fail to understand it. Everything that expands needs space where it can expand.
    I'm not the scientist here.
     
  10. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Well, I apologize to say this, but I really don't understand why outside space is not needed for something to expand, I give up.
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,566
    The reason that you are having a difficult time understanding it is because it is outside of our everyday experiences. The only help I can give you is the expansion of the universe cannot be fully demonstrated with any analogy we can come up with. It is unique.
     
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    If universe expansed as we assume, relative to the galaxies, are you saying science is not competent enough to play the model backwards and superimpose the origin onto our current universe?

    I will give you a hint. Leave the current universe as a layer on a video. Next we add another layer and play the expansion backward. What is so hard about that? Where does it end up?
     
  13. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    this is because this is our everyday understanding of how our world works. we see things expand into something because we are outside observers. the universe is everything and counter to our experiences there is no outside by definition. now, there may very well be an outside to our universe but we, at this juncture, don't have any way to get there. i can suggest a read of Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions by Edwin Abbott Abbott. this will give you an idea about being restricted in how you perceive your world.

    http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/flatland/
     
  14. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    Likewise

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Sorry for the delayed reply, I was going to write back sooner but wanted to look up a couple of details first.

    Well as the universe on the whole continues to expand, the Big Rip model holds that the vacuum energy density will increase as well, and that this vacuum energy will have a repulsive effect on all matter and energy in the universe. So even if galaxies can hold together for so many billions of years, eventually the model predicts that they too will be ripped apart, and ultimately, within some finite time period, no two separate points in the universe will be causally connected and nothing other than the most fundamental elementary particles will be able to exist.

    Highly speculative, and it completely depends on the fudging one chooses to do in resolving the outstanding conflicts between General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, so one should only take this model with a grain of salt. I call it "the most modern picture" because it's the most recent model I've personally heard of for the ultimate fate of our universe, but it's extremely speculative. On second thought, I don't even know if it may have been superceded in recent years, it's just the last word I've heard from my personal contacts in the field.
     
  15. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Well, thank you for that, I have a similar opinion like you: that universe is everything and there is no outside by definition, but still me or you can't really know this for sure and it's logical it couldn't be created from nothing and it couldn't be created in nothingness, unless we're talking about space outside the universe where the universe was created, plus the universe is simply just too vast.
    And thanks for the link, I'll read it as soon as I catch some time.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2012
  16. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Okay, here's my $.02 on the matter, but, please notice my moniker!
    I really do not subscribe to the "Big Bang" theory, but if we are to believe that the whole universe started from one little tiny point in the middle of absolutely NOTHING ( a Singularity ? ), then the answer would have to be , EVERYWHERE !! I "grog" this by reasoning that if NOTHING suddenly becomes EVERYTHING, then there would be no CENTER or STARTING POINT because there would not have been a goegraphical or 3-dimensional "foci" of said "singularity" PRIOR to the Theorized event!!
    If we are to truly believe that the Universe indeed has a "starting point", and that it was indeed some 14 billion years in the past - how can we, as a civilization hope to believe that we have "completely figured the full workings of the whole universe" after only a few thousand years of "cognitive" thinking!!
    Look, i've already admitted to being the dumbest man on earth, so there is a full possibility that I am, once again, wrong when I do not believe that there is indeed any way to "know it all"!!
    So, to sum it up; If, notice the if, IF the "Big Bang" happened, then the answer to - Where did it happen? - would have to be......HERE !!!!
    Later, the dumbest man on earth
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2012
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    Grok, not grog.

    Signed,
    Mr. Picky.
     
  18. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    You got me, Actually most people do not even get the "grok". Read that when I was a kid (way too many decades ago!!) and most younger people look at me like I asked them the Square Root of the color Yellow when they hear me use it. So either you have been a voracious reader like myself and/or you are no longer a young pup. If the latter - then you may be able to understand my POOR EXCUSE - I seem to have had a senior moment!
    Honestly, though, it is refreshing to have someone know what I indeed did mean and I do not mind in the least that you pointed it out.
    I fully expect that most people just read my posts and think, "yep, dumbest man on earth!!"
    Later.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2012
  19. traceyh Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8
    Does the universe expand at the speed of light?
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,478
    Faster than the speed of light - currently thought to be about x2 or x3 the speed of light.

    For example, the oldest light reaching us at the moment is from c.13 billion years ago.
    That light left those galaxies when they were only 100 million LY away from us, but it has taken 13 billion years to get to us due to the "expansion" of space... but that galaxy would now be around 45 billion LY away from us.
    For it to have travelled c.45 billion LY in only 13 billion years requires expansion that exceeds the speed that light travels.

    I have read reports that suggest that in the early universe the expansion was much faster still, around x50 the speed of light.
     
  21. elte Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,344
    Maybe another way to ask this question would be, into which constellation of our night sky can we point a telescope so that we are looking back in the direction that the Milky Way came from?
     
  22. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    My theory is the BB was not a singular event, but actually occurred as a large number of simultaneous mini-big bangs at the level of the galaxies. Here is my logic. The mini-big bang model is connected to quantum theory and how matter/energy is defined by quanta.

    If you compared a quantum division of the primordial atom, similar to cells dividing into distinct quantum states, to a singular BB event, the singular BB event defines much higher entropy, since it implies dissociation into a large number of particles. The quantum division, similar to cell division, defines less entropy per cycle because very little changes except at the quantum bulk state.

    Since entropy requires energy to occur, if we start with X energy the lower entropy of the quantum division, means we have energy left over compared to the big bomb scenario. This is used to expand space-time during the quantum division. The result is the matter of the primordial atom becomes separated into quanta of huge mass which become increasingly separated via expanded space-time. At a certain point these go through a mini-big bang phase at the galaxy level.

    There are observations of spiral galaxies with more turns than should be possible in the amount of time associated with the age of the universe. This is based on the scenario of the singular BB event. There are also observations of very early star formation and large superstructures within the universe which create conceptual problems for the singular event.

    If we use the mini-big bang approach none of these pose a problem, since the galaxies are already self contained during individual mini big bang expansion. The expanding galaxies will also feel, powerful energy pressure waves, with a time delay, which stem from all the other mini-big bangs. This adds twist and eddies to individual expansions that gets weaker with time.

    As far as where the BB occurred, for us on earth is was the center of our galaxy. The black hole that remains is a remnant of its powerful beginning.
     
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,566
    That is not a theory that is a guess.

    That really does not mean much, and demonstrates little or no logic

    Quantum division? Cells dividing into distinct quantum states? Oh God! Not more uniformed entropy drivel!

    A BS salad - now that is unappetizing.

    Really? Please site your sources.

    Really? Please site your sources.

    This really has no business being anywhere but in pseudo-science.

    Geeze, if you are just going to make crap up at least make it semi-possible!
     

Share This Page