Is Big Bang wrong?
- Thread starter Reiku
- Start date
- Status
so is space a consequence of energy and matter, and the space , this energy and matter needs to exist in the first place or is space an entirely different enity altogether
Space is not matter and therefore doesn't share the limitations of matter.
The observation that space is expanding makes it a both a possibility and an actuality.
See post #29 for the answer.
But still, that doesn't mean space is expanding, scientists already said that space is not entirely empty, but what about the space between quantum fluctuations-I'm sure there is at least some empty space between these quantum fluctuations.
Gauge fields fill all of space. There's nothing that's truely empty.
I'm not sure-what about great voids, no matter, no energy, no nothing.
I just don't believe in that, it's impossible to measure incredibly small sizes of space, that's why none can rule this out as possibility.
That's exactly what it means. I can't make you accept it, but it is what it is regardless of what you or I think.
Every point of space has fields permeating it; however, I am unclear as to what point you are trying to make. If a cross section of space happens to be absent of a real or virtual particle... so what?
Exactly. The potential for a real or virtual particle is still there, and the field from which this potential arises is still there.
Like I said, you have to measure it first down to the smallest level, but the question is there a smallest level? No microscope can detect the smallest level if there is one?
But that does not mean there is not some extremely small amount of space between these fields, it's impossible to rule out that. You should be able to see the smallest space with microscope, or should I say with yoctoscope, but it's impossible.
Just for the record, I do accept what all of you said, after all you're the scientists.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't mean there is no space between the fields, no matter how small space is in its size.
Again, how can you be sure, since scientists did not detect the smallest level yet.
Note to ALL:
I apologize for my not very good understanding when it comes to this subject, I simply failed to understand how it is possible to expand something without space outside, and this is why I think the smartest thing for me is to withdraw from this thread. It's easier for me to understand if someone shows me a drawing of how does this looks like, this is why I'm going to try to catch some astrophysicist to give me more thorough explanation.
Anyway thank you for your efforts for trying to explain me this particular subject.
I appreciate them.
I apologize for my not very good understanding when it comes to this subject, I simply failed to understand how it is possible to expand something without space outside, and this is why I think the smartest thing for me is to withdraw from this thread. It's easier for me to understand if someone shows me a drawing of how does this looks like, this is why I'm going to try to catch some astrophysicist to give me more thorough explanation.
Anyway thank you for your efforts for trying to explain me this particular subject.
I appreciate them.
Considering (now getting back to the OP) how many re-adjustable parameters are allowed for the BB to make it a viable theory alone makes it non-viable. The problems of big bang in other words have been ignored by processes of nip and tuck.
Some of the biggest problems came from when it was first created. We began the universe at the size of about a blood cell, but as small as that was did not leave enough room required for cosmic expansion or the age-requirements of certain galaxies. Starting it smaller, infinitesimally-smaller, much smaller than a proton we were able to start time off correctly as far as we have fudged the general view, (with superclusters with serious error margins which have been ignored) but we required a new modification to account for background temperatures.
As was suggested by the OP link, Eddington first concluded a background temperature of 2.7k but was created from a gradual fog of radiation expelled from galaxies and supergalaxies filling the space inbetween. Of course, you'd expect it could not be completely homogeneous if this was the case and it turns out, as a little bit of info the link does not give, is that the background temperatures is accurate to a 10,000th degree of error in each direction of spacetime.
To account for the background radiation, instead of adopting Eddingtons model we were left with, strangely enough an entirely new phenomenon called rapid inflationary expansion which may have even required itself a field mediated by ''inflatons''.
What was science thinking I wonder in taking this path? Einstein once said that physics should be kept simple but no simpler, but it seems physics decided to account for the background radiation simply for the remnant of the BB smoothed out by cosmic inflation.
If this was the case, then cosmologists are aware that after inflation, parts of the universe would remain expanding at different rates. It's left us a very complicated theory to deal with. It would have been much simpler to conclude that everything has an eternal feature to it instead of believing that there necesserily needed to be a beginning to the universe. It would have been much simpler to think that the universe always had some kind of energy density inside of it in the form of virtual particles and that nature would allow under certain conditions longer lived fluctuations which makes the observable universe as we see it today.
A beginning of time is a very poetic, very logical (and some might even consider a deterministic) view of reality. Needless to say, a universe which has been around forever could be just as deterministic.
Some of the biggest problems came from when it was first created. We began the universe at the size of about a blood cell, but as small as that was did not leave enough room required for cosmic expansion or the age-requirements of certain galaxies. Starting it smaller, infinitesimally-smaller, much smaller than a proton we were able to start time off correctly as far as we have fudged the general view, (with superclusters with serious error margins which have been ignored) but we required a new modification to account for background temperatures.
As was suggested by the OP link, Eddington first concluded a background temperature of 2.7k but was created from a gradual fog of radiation expelled from galaxies and supergalaxies filling the space inbetween. Of course, you'd expect it could not be completely homogeneous if this was the case and it turns out, as a little bit of info the link does not give, is that the background temperatures is accurate to a 10,000th degree of error in each direction of spacetime.
To account for the background radiation, instead of adopting Eddingtons model we were left with, strangely enough an entirely new phenomenon called rapid inflationary expansion which may have even required itself a field mediated by ''inflatons''.
What was science thinking I wonder in taking this path? Einstein once said that physics should be kept simple but no simpler, but it seems physics decided to account for the background radiation simply for the remnant of the BB smoothed out by cosmic inflation.
If this was the case, then cosmologists are aware that after inflation, parts of the universe would remain expanding at different rates. It's left us a very complicated theory to deal with. It would have been much simpler to conclude that everything has an eternal feature to it instead of believing that there necesserily needed to be a beginning to the universe. It would have been much simpler to think that the universe always had some kind of energy density inside of it in the form of virtual particles and that nature would allow under certain conditions longer lived fluctuations which makes the observable universe as we see it today.
A beginning of time is a very poetic, very logical (and some might even consider a deterministic) view of reality. Needless to say, a universe which has been around forever could be just as deterministic.
IMO you never have to apologize for asking real questions and trying to extend your understanding.
Fields (based on our current understanding) permeate all space simply because they are part of space. That would mean that a point of space without a field would not exist; however, we don't have the technology to confirm that yet but there has been no indication that the notion does not hold. Meanwhile, still have to ask what is the relevance?
There is nothing wrong with having difficulty understanding something, if this is what you have been getting at with those oddball questions about fields in space then next time just ask the question up front
.Expansion of space is different based on the theory that is being analyzed. For example, in M-Thory and even some inflationary theories, space does in fact expand into an outer container.
The standard model inflationary theory (i.e. standard Big Bang theory) is a little conceptually strange. It states at t=0 (beginning of time for out universe), all points of space overlapped (and the model implies an infinite number of points) into a single super-point. Next, several swathes of overlapped points moved away from the original by exactly 1 point in distance, surrounding it and being in contact with it. Now the universe is made up of multiple super-points. The process repeats and swathes of overlapped points move away from all the super-points by exactly 1 point in distance, surrounding them and being in contact with them. Now the universe is made up of even more super-points. Continue this process until now and we have our modern universe. From a human perspective, the universe is expanding because we are contained within it. The universe itself would be an infinite entity that simply has a different configuration then it did at t=0. Because it has always had infinite points, the change in configuration (what we perceive as expansion) doesn't require any kind of outer container.
- Status