Is the universe an expanding ball?

Ummm, except of course we have evidence that the Universe/spacetime is expanding...In fact evidence of late, shows that expansion to be accelerating.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let's make that a little more general: other than the laws of physics being what they are, there is no reason for any physical thing to do anything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

perhaps

but the thing is , does space come before the manifestation of energy/matter or does energy/matter/space happen simultaneously ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Space [and probably an unknown inherent property of space [DE?]] and time evolved from what we know as the BB.
Matter came a short time later.

 

why does this seem reasonable to you

matter came after space & time ?

 

technically, it is not correct.

perhaps he's thinking that consdensed matter (energy condensed into particles) came after initiation of the BB. That would be true under the BB theory. eventually, over time, the quark-gluon soup condensed into protons/neutrons, which many years later attracted electrons that stuck ('cause it was now cooled enough) forming H and He.

 

It seems reasonable the energy, space and time into existence and it wasn't until the universe cooled a bit that the energy could form into matter.

 

You beat me by that much, Walter.

 

great minds thinking alike, no doubt!

 

so a plasma came first , fine

so does the plasma come first , and/or space & time ?

or both simultaneous ?

 

concurrently. 'infinite' density as a 'singularity' but moving to very high density as time initiates (likely due to quantum perturbations). as our region (visible universe) expands, it cools and the 'plasma' forms into particulate matter. We see the last phase of this (coupling of electrons to protons, rendering the proton/electron soup as transparent to visible photons) via the microwave background, which is the coupling radiation (photonission from the coupling process) receding from us at nearly 0.999999c (very high speed or temperature).

 

how does this answer my above question ?

 

river no doubt, is trying to infer that Plasma [as in Plasma/Electric Universe] had more say in the evolution of said Universe than did gravity.

As I see it the BB as I have said evolved space and time and an inherent property of that space we call the "Superforce".
As temperatures and pressures started to recede, the Superforce started to decouple, gravity first.
Phase transitions and false vacuums lead to the formation of our first fundamentals.
From there, it was rather plane sailing as temperatures and pressures continued to drop, along with spacetime expansion, until around 380,000 years after the Initial event, the first atomic atoms were formed as electrons coupled with atomic nucleii.

Any errors, alterations or corrections, Walter? origin?
That was the picture presented to me by an astronomer a few years back.

 

a conundrum

 

No, a natural progression of our first fundamentals, to atomic nucleii, to simple elements, to stars and gravity, to nucleosynthesis and gravity, planets, Abiogenesis, Evolution and voila!!!...here we are today!

 

plasma is handy !!!!

 

plain sailing, not plane sailing. otherwise, correct. that is what colliders do, mimic those early conditions in which the forces were merged; with the expansion came the separation of the forces to that which we observe today.

 

@ Walter L. Wagner

WLW, after reading and participating in these Threads for a few years, I have discerned a few "hinkey" or "irksome" aspects of this Forum.

1.) - When some Members refer to abstract 'theories', they equate them as "Reality", rather than "models", "constructs" or "representations" of Reality.

2.) - When some Members read the word "plasma", in relation to Cosmology, they seem to immediately 'assume' or 'presume' that someone is pushing the 'Plasma/Electric Universe' theory.

WLW, you seem from your Posts to fully understand that the "Big Bang" theory is a theory, and that somewhere between 10 to the –12 seconds and 1 second after the initial 'Big Bang', the universe consisted primarily of a "quark-gluon soup" or "quark-gluon plasma', according to the "Big Bang" theory.
Is this correct so far?

river seems to be tying to figure out if 'matter' came before 'space' and 'time', or if 'space' and 'time' came before 'matter'?
He has also asked, in other Threads, that if 'matter', 'space' and 'time' manifested out of this 'theoretical quark-gluon plasma', which came First? Was 'plasma' First, which condensed to 'matter' and then 'space' and 'time'( 'space' and 'time' being dependent on "matter'?) - or did 'space' and 'time' come First, prior to the 'supersymmetry', 'quark', 'hadron' or 'quark-gluon plasma' epochs?

WLW, in your Post #31, you seem to have answered "concurrently".
To which river replied, in his Post #32 : "how does this answer my above question ?"
From my estimation, WLW, this seems to be river's "sticking point" or "conundrum".

From what I was taught and learned of the "Big Bang" theory, any 'time' Prior to the end of the initial 'cosmic inflation', and the Early Universe consisting entirely of this 'quark-gluon plasma', is only 'speculation' or 'conjecture'.
WLW, am I possibly correct in that?

river seems to be trying to figure out, if, according to the "Big Bang" theory, 'plasma' had to 'coalesce' or 'condense' to 'matter' before 'space' and 'time' could manifest into existence?
At least that is what I have discerned from his Posts.
Whether or not river is 'inferring' a 'Plasma/Electric Universe' theory, I prefer not to 'presume' or 'assume', I will leave that "conclusion" to others.

WLW, is there, or can there be a "definitive" answer to river's 'conundrum'?
Any time that I try to provide any "input" on the issue...it is not, shall we say, well received.

Your "input", "views" or "opinions" appear to be 'acceptable' and therefore well received by most of the Members that 'malign" my own.
For that reason, WLW, further "clarification" or "elaboration" in providing answers to aid in solving river's apparent 'conundrum', may just alleviate said 'conundrum'.

This may or may not lead to "solving" the 2 enumerated aspects that I Posted, or it may well lead to establishing whether or not river is indeed simply 'inferring' or 'pushing' the 'Plasma/Electric Universe' theory.

Either way, it would seem to help everyone in the long run...possibly.

 

Thanks for the general note of approval.

BB theory posits that space-time began expanding, and that the energy that would coalesce into particles was in 'pure-energy' form; we describe this as being a very high temperature 'soup' of quarks/gluon, etc. that is too high of a temperature to form any type of particle. the conundrum is, what caused the point in which the energy could expand enough to start coalescing into particles. Even then, BB theory posits that that process lasted for quite a long while ("until around 380,000 years after the Initial event" as per paddoboy). we have to infer those times/values based on our observations of hot plasmas we create in colliders. what we can know by direct observation is that at a certain point in time, long after the quarks and gluons coalesced into protons/neutrons, and some He nuclei, the expansion/cooling had continued enough that the 'hot' nuclei had sufficiently cooled to allow the electrons (that had also formed) to drop down to the quantum ground state for H (about 2,700 degrees K, i.e. 'white hot'), making it transparent to visible light photons. This happened everywhere in the universe. Most of the universe 'blew away from us' in the expansion which we see as a recessional velocity (mostly from galaxies, but also the cosmic microwave baackground emitter). That part that blew away quite fast has a recessional velocity of about 0.999999c, so we see that as a white hot plasma with a redshift of about 1,000, so the visible white-hot photons show, in our reference frame, as microwave photons, being equivalent to a blackbody radiation spectrum from a 2.7 K blackbody; i.e. our cosmic microwave background.

Questions not answered as of yet include what happened to all of the anti-matter that would have been created (or, why did matter have a dominance over anti-matter); and what initiated the expansion, or what caused there to be a 'point in time' in which this could occur. This scenario also infers an infinite universe, with only a finite visible portion (that part that we can see within the volume-sphere of the cosmic-microwave-background emitter) currently visible. This poses interesting questions for persons who postulate that life MUST evolve because of our laws of physics/chemistry.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Accepted....Too much haste and not enough time!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

River has been pushing the long discarded Ëlectric/Plasma Universe theory for a while now, and he will at every opportunity, insidiously try and infer it.
His remark thus is an example....

Others see him as a troll.


As most cosmologists know, the BB in that first instant, was an evolution of space and time.
And although we no nothing of that first 10-43 seconds, according to our particle physics model and that progression I spoke of as temperatures and pressures started to drop, reasonable logical assumptions can be extrapolated backwards to the period just after 10-43 seconds.
That natural progression of our first fundamentals, [after the Superforce started to decouple] to atomic nucleii, to simple elements, to stars and gravity, to nucleosynthesis and gravity, planets, Abiogenesis, Evolution, appears to fit logically and is supported in experiments in our colliders.

The fact also how that BB scenario, GR, particle physics all seem to go hand in glove in supporting each other.

No one has mentioned reality my dear friend. Scientific models are formulated based on observations, experimentations, and like any scientific theory, are open to modification and/or change if and when necessary.
They align as close as possible to that reality, based on those observations and experimentations, and over the course of time, as they further match that criteria, the more certain they become.
As I have mentioned before, it's not so much what you have been taught that is the problem......it is your agenda and the misinterpretations that you apply.

My picture of river is spot on as has been shown.
The Quarks you mention, as well as electrons, were some of the first fundamentals created after the Superforce decoupling and phase transitions.

rivers has been told many times, as have you, that the BB was an evolution of space and time.
The agenda he carries though is that he does not accept the BB and prefers the long discarded Plasma/Electric Universe rubbish.
Your own non acceptance of the BB is also on record, although what other model you prefer is far less certain, although your sympathy towards God Botherers and the like, may be an indication.

How could matter exist without space? or time for that matter?
But as I previously mentioned, that is not what the BB entails anyway.
In essence, to even suggest matter could be in existence, before space and time is nonsense.

Perhaps if you were not so anti science, and anti BB, and came down to Earth a peg or two, you may be better accepted.
In other words, peruse the evidence available, and make an unbiased judgement....Accept that some scientific theories are damn well near certain.....They are as close to this reality you spoke of, as anyone would hope them to be...Apply some common sense and logic, and discard your prejudices would be my best advice.
All the best.