This is only a theory in the works of the universe's creation

Only matter can have a temperature, because the definition of temperature is based upon its effect on matter. Vacuums don't have temperatures. So to say that empty space has a temperature of absolute zero is incorrect. Empty space doesn't have a temperature at all.
 
Ive been reminded of this thread recently and you know.. I feel like I left it too soon..

Fraggle says empty space has no temperature. However george garnow says empty space probably has a temperature of about 3 kelvin.. Which is pretty cold, much lower then what it would take to freeze any matter in a fraction of a second. Anyways I still wonder about this because it was dismissed do to a few members dismissing the idea of nothing having a temperature.

Lets assume all the black body radiation can hold a temperature and may be slightly unstable in a different situation a pre-milky way kind of situation. Is it not unlikely that the radiation was in some way the unstable event that caused the spark in cosmic growrth? According to wikipedia article on black body radiation, it has a pool of enery and even passes on a sizeable amount of energy. It could be simply a vessel of the expansion..

Anyways, please be gentle im only an amatuer. Also im posting from my cell phone so I am not quite as detailed as I would have like to of made this acient bump.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Only matter can have a temperature, because the definition of temperature is based upon its effect on matter. Vacuums don't have temperatures. So to say that empty space has a temperature of absolute zero is incorrect. Empty space doesn't have a temperature at all.
Click to expand...
That is true, except for the fact that there is no "empty space." It is all filled with the cosmic background radiation which has, except for some absorption parts in the higher than peak region of the spectrum as I recall, the black body thermal distribution of about 3 K. Long ago it was much hotter -the temperature of a weakly ionized hydrogen plasma. When the universe had cooled enough for that plasma to recombine, that radiation was left behind and cooled as the universe expanded. For a while after it cooled and prior to the first star, there was no visible light anywhere in the universe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
That is true, except for the fact that there is no "empty space." It is all filled with the cosmic background radiation which has, except for some absorption parts in the higher than peak region of the spectrum as I recall, the black body thermal distribution of about 3 K. Long ago it was much hotter -the temperature of a weakly ionized hydrogen plasma. When the universe had cooled enough for that plasma to recombine, that radiation was left behind and cooled as the universe expanded. For a while after it cooled and prior to the first star, there was no visible light anywhere in the universe.
Click to expand...

Okay, but if there is no empty space then exactly what is the universe supposed to be expanding into. This part seems to confuse me. In order for space to be expanding it must be expanding into something that is technically "empty space" which makes it seem extremely difficult to follow.

Also are you saying black body radiation is able to store the energy it recieves? So in laymans terms, the radiation is the effect of something like the birth of a star? It sounds like all the background radiations are simply expelling into the "empty space"
 
Okay, but if there is no empty space then exactly what is the universe supposed to be expanding into.
Click to expand...

The universe isn't expanding INTO anything. It's the universe itself which is expanding. Space is expanding.
 
Yeah, but thats kind of vague... If the universe is expanding, then does that mean the radiations are spreading further apart, or is the universe growing in size in a much more obscure manner than compared to a star expanding.. Either way, if the universe is expanding then that seems like there is room for it to expand elsewhere.
 
RickyH said:
Yeah, but thats kind of vague... If the universe is expanding, then does that mean the radiations are spreading further apart, or is the universe growing in size in a much more obscure manner than compared to a star expanding.. Either way, if the universe is expanding then that seems like there is room for it to expand elsewhere.
Click to expand...
There isn't any Elsewhere, but if you don't believe that would like to own some, I will give you a deed to 10 million cubic miles of elsewhere for only $100.

Cosmic background radiation is going in all directions so idea that it is "spreading further apart" is a little strange. What it is doing is "stretching" with space so the wave lenghts are growing longer with time. This means each photon is loosing energy, so the total energy in them is decreasing, but I think, but am not sure, that they are making radiation pressure that helps separate space and stars etc. to increase the gravitational potential energy. Problem with this POV is that the photon are hitting the stars equally from all sides. Perhaps energy is conserved by the "zero point energy of space"? (But those are just words I don't understand.) Perhaps as total photon energy disappears it makes some dark energy, but I think there is much more of that than can come from this decrease.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
There isn't any Elsewhere, but if you don't believe that would like to own some, I will give you a deed to 10 million cubic miles of elsewhere for only $100.

Cosmic background radiation is going in all directions so idea that it is "spreading further apart" is a little strange. What it is doing is "stretching" with space so the wave lenghts are growing longer with time.
Click to expand...

Sorry if this comes off as if I am misreading any of this but I still dont get it.

If there is no such thing as empty space, but space is stretching out.. Therefor increasing in size.. Then it seems like its better said "the cosmic radiation is spreading into a non existent endless body of nothing.. In which case it cant be nothing because it does not exist until the radiation has stretched itself far enough to create the space which then catapults it into the laws of physics.

So, you also mentioned that the radiation is warmer in certain celestial bodies and colder in most of what you could call the outer rim. Im assuming this has to do with what the frwquencies are and the amount occupied by that space.

Is the decrease in temperature causing more exansion then an area with a lot more heat?
 
RickyH said:
... So, you also mentioned that the radiation is warmer in certain celestial bodies and colder in most of what you could call the outer rim. Im assuming this has to do with what the frequencies are and the amount occupied by that space.

Is the decrease in temperature causing more exansion then an area with a lot more heat?
Click to expand...
Stars do make the average temperature of "empty space" near them higher but they are all "at the center of the universe" if there is any sense to that phrase. I.e. definitely none are near the rim or edge as that does not exist. I don't know if the rate of expansion of space near a star is higher than far from one* at the same time after the big bang. What we see is that now the rate of expansion is greater than it was long ago. - This is the main evidence for "dark energy."

*It is true that as photons go away from a star they lose energy, get longer wavelengths, more rapidly than just due to the expansion of the universe. They lose energy as they are "climbing up a gravitational hill" the star makes. Perhaps there is some way to twist this into a view that space near the star is expanding more rapidly but I doubt it would be consistent with other things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RickyH said:
Then it seems like its better said "the cosmic radiation is spreading into a non existent endless body of nothing.. In which case it cant be nothing because it does not exist until the radiation has stretched itself far enough to create the space which then catapults it into the laws of physics.
Click to expand...
Though its natural to try and think of the universe expanding into something, like a balloon expanding is expanding within the room you're in (assuming you're the one blowing it up) it's not necessarily true of space-time. It's quite an abstract concept and one which is hard to get your head around if you're unfamiliar with various notions within non-Euclidean geometry and relativity.

RickyH said:
Yeah, but thats kind of vague...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, and I don't mean this in an insulting way, if you were provided with the details you'd not understand them. Too often (and I'm not saying you're doing this, I'm just commenting on a common thing) certain people online will work by the principle of saying "That explanation is too vague, so I don't accept it. And that detailed explanation is over my head, so I don't accept it". It's catch 22, their own ignorance means they don't accept when they are wrong (and thus ignorant on some level). If you want to know where to start reading to eventually understand the details then I can suggest a few books but it's a long (ie years) road.
 
Billy T said:
Stars do make the average temperature of "empty space" near them higher but they are all "at the center of the universe" if there is any sense to that phrase. I.e. definitely none are near the rim or edge as that does not exist. I don't know if the rate of expansion of space near a star is higher than far from one* at the same time after the big bang. What we see is that now the rate of expansion is greater than it was long ago. - This is the main evidence for "dark energy."

*It is true that as photons go away from a star they lose energy, get longer wavelengths, more rapidly than just due to the expansion of the universe. They lose energy as they are "climbing up a gravitational hill" the star makes. Perhaps there is some way to twist this into a view that space near the star is expanding more rapidly but I doubt it would be consistent with other things.
Click to expand...

Alright so I am going to double back s bit as I am not sure if this really applies but it could help organize my thought. I was googling for more information on the universes inflation era. Members from cornells astrology secrion described it like putting bread with something like a raison in it. The yeast expands but keeps the same properties while the raison inside all spread further apart. This is easy to understand but whats beyond invisible space?

It also suggested that the universes expansion has slowed.. But how would it really speed up? How can it be accelerated at speeds greater than light? With that, how is it possible for it to slow down? I mean the cosmic radiations cant really be affected by stars light years away could it? For instance what effect does the sun have on the expansion?
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Though its natural to try and think of the universe expanding into something, like a balloon expanding is expanding within the room you're in (assuming you're the one blowing it up) it's not necessarily true of space-time. It's quite an abstract concept and one which is hard to get your head around if you're unfamiliar with various notions within non-Euclidean geometry and relativity.

Unfortunately, and I don't mean this in an insulting way, if you were provided with the details you'd not understand them. Too often (and I'm not saying you're doing this, I'm just commenting on a common thing) certain people online will work by the principle of saying "That explanation is too vague, so I don't accept it. And that detailed explanation is over my head, so I don't accept it". It's catch 22, their own ignorance means they don't accept when they are wrong (and thus ignorant on some level). If you want to know where to start reading to eventually understand the details then I can suggest a few books but it's a long (ie years) road.
Click to expand...

Well I am young, so I am still here to learn. To start this of I just want to say that im not clinging to any woo-woo tactics. So when I said that was too vague I wasnt being dismissive that it could happen. I just felt his statement by itself could be misleading.

No, no.. Im not insulted. I know that I dont truely know anything. But I think you can still give me a bit more credit then that.

Also books? I will take any book you guys list seriously and I will start up a book collection for a better understanding. I have so much more free time now, so feel free to share
 
We know how matter behaves in space not what space actually is. I'd say if someone can crack exactly what space is then we would have our theory of everything. But anyhow back to this idea.

All of the observable universe is filled with radiation from the CMB and also large numbers of neutrinos, the temperature of this radiation is about 3 K. So thats where your source gets 3 k from. But see before the big bang there was no CMB or exotic particles to radiate heat. Without the big bang, there would be no motion, no heat, no nothing.

Makes me wonder how did the universe know to expand? IF there was in fact nothing, zero kelvin then there cannot be even an exchange of the information that hey the temperature just changed! Unless that is in fact a property of space itself, I suspect space is something with carries two bits of information.. thats time and temperature lol. I think the only way we can make the laws of the universe make sense through the entire universe is if space itself knows how fast things can move through it or if matter does somehow. To me it seems more likely space must itself carry at least some information or we may find for instance maybe other laws of the universe that were formed after the inflation will vary throughout the universe. But if all the parts of the universe even those over the horizon have the exact same laws then at least we know part of the information on how things work was immediate and everywhere just like space is. Jeez this topic I don't particularly like because once I start speculating I can't stop lol.
 
dhcracker said:
We know how matter behaves in space not what space actually is. I'd say if someone can crack exactly what space is then we would have our theory of everything. But anyhow back to this idea.

All of the observable universe is filled with radiation from the CMB and also large numbers of neutrinos, the temperature of this radiation is about 3 K. So thats where your source gets 3 k from. But see before the big bang there was no CMB or exotic particles to radiate heat. Without the big bang, there would be no motion, no heat, no nothing.

Makes me wonder how did the universe know to expand? IF there was in fact nothing, zero kelvin then there cannot be even an exchange of the information that hey the temperature just changed! Unless that is in fact a property of space itself, I suspect space is something with carries two bits of information.. thats time and temperature lol. I think the only way we can make the laws of the universe make sense through the entire universe is if space itself knows how fast things can move through it or if matter does somehow. To me it seems more likely space must itself carry at least some information or we may find for instance maybe other laws of the universe that were formed after the inflation will vary throughout the universe. But if all the parts of the universe even those over the horizon have the exact same laws then at least we know part of the information on how things work was immediate and everywhere just like space is. Jeez this topic I don't particularly like because once I start speculating I can't stop lol.
Click to expand...

Wow, awesome post man. Thanks for the input.

I am right there with you. From what I have gathered about the big bang is that an infinite amount of energy existed when there was nothing. Which translates to it having a trmperature and there for it contains matter. However I dont understand how laws that only apply to space after the inflation had to exist before it began. Like how can matter and anti matter do so much, so incredibly fast. I understand that theyre polar opposites so they are repelling each other and the extra particle of matter is causing the ability to create different types of energy and particles... But its so different then our normal logic on how energy and matter can be destroyed.. Like th he atomic bomb is essentially the total annihilation of a tiny piece of matter and converts it into a huge energy source.. But the big bang is an energy source that creates matter.
 
When we say "Universe" are we talking about that portion of which the has reached us, or, something beyond that? I mean, we're only seeing a small bit of Universe right?
 
Michael said:
When we say "Universe" are we talking about that portion of which the has reached us, or, something beyond that? I mean, we're only seeing a small bit of Universe right?
Click to expand...

Well to define it, we are speaking of the known universe. Right now the universe is extremely uniformal. So to speak of what we cant see is sort of the missing link. What I mean is that if we knew what is or what isnt in the unknown empty space is exactly the kind of data cosmologists are trying to understand.
 
But if we start talking about the big bang then we are talking about the entire universe even things over our visible horizon. As Ricky says we are trying to take what we see and figure out things we can't see. Isn't Cosmology grand?
 
RickyH said:
Wow, awesome post man. Thanks for the input.

I am right there with you. From what I have gathered about the big bang is that an infinite amount of energy existed when there was nothing. Which translates to it having a trmperature and there for it contains matter. However I dont understand how laws that only apply to space after the inflation had to exist before it began. Like how can matter and anti matter do so much, so incredibly fast. I understand that theyre polar opposites so they are repelling each other and the extra particle of matter is causing the ability to create different types of energy and particles... But its so different then our normal logic on how energy and matter can be destroyed.. Like th he atomic bomb is essentially the total annihilation of a tiny piece of matter and converts it into a huge energy source.. But the big bang is an energy source that creates matter.
Click to expand...

Well close, see it may be more precise to say there was nothing, then there was the infinitely dense and infinitely small point or energy. As soon as you have heat and energy you have the beginning of space/time remember the two are tied together. Without motion or energy there is absolutely nothing not even the passing of time, and once inflation occurred time began and we know the properties of time are such that it always moves forward in its local reference. We can't be certain if the arrow of time has always advanced at a consistent rate.. well we can't be sure past the CMB because there was no light by which to measure it, however its likely it has. I haven't seen any VSL (variable speed of light) time variant theories that get me too excited yet.
 
dhcracker said:
Well close, see it may be more precise to say there was nothing, then there was the infinitely dense and infinitely small point or energy. As soon as you have heat and energy you have the beginning of space/time remember the two are tied together. Without motion or energy there is absolutely nothing not even the passing of time, and once inflation occurred time began and we know the properties of time are such that it always moves forward in its local reference. We can't be certain if the arrow of time has always advanced at a consistent rate.. well we can't be sure past the CMB because there was no light by which to measure it, however its likely it has. I haven't seen any VSL (variable speed of light) time variant theories that get me too excited yet.
Click to expand...

Well, you are saying that time began at the same time as inflation. That still has a huge grey area. Is it possible that energy exists even in the presence of nothing? Its weird to say that because it must mean that nothing has a temp even if that temp is .0001k or 0k. My thoughts are though what would happen at absolute zero
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top