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

We can see a large fraction (> 2/3 by volume ?) of what it was with biggest telescopes, but "now" the universe is much bigger than we can see. I.e. We can see very distant galaxies when they were something like (I think) 13 billion light years away, but "now" with the continuing and accelerating expansion of the universe they are much farther away.


BTW dhcracker & RickyH are nice example of the blind leading the blind happily along their concepts of the universe. I don't want to disturb this happy pair by posting comments on their views.

The basic problem is that understanding of the universe is difficult for humans and to large extent based on mathematics. Thinking there must be an edge, must be space outside the stars are expanding into, believing that every star can not be at the center, (or that there must be only one center ), etc. comes very naturally to typical human thought patterns.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Billyt is a good example of why no one really can understand it. This isnt religion, we arent blasting concepts we dont understand. We are questioning the logic given to us. If you want to be a dick, fine. No one cares if you make serious contributions, its a choice not an obligation.

Further more, its not that we cant understand the logic, its because people are too stuck up to explain what they think is going on. Youre a good example of this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it's sad to imagine a future where sentient beings will look into the night sky and not see anything - our bit of the universe will have moved so far away that the light from the other bits will never again reach here

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Somehow I feel comforted in knowing there's a lot of stuff out there, some of that stuff is probably thinking somewhat like me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Billyt has an excellent record of taking the time to explain a variety of topics to those willing to listen. I've gone over the postings since you rejoined the thread and it seems you stopped listening to him quite early on.

He is just expressing the frustration that comes from encountering the 758th person who won't flip the switch in their brain that allows them to 'believe six impossible things before breakfast'. The trick is to make sure they are the right 'six impossible things'. Entering a dialogue with someone who is just as confused as you will not get you there.

Please just get your mind around these two points.
Everything is at the centre of the universe.
The universe does not have an edge.

 

Well I appologize for calling him a dick. But I still feel like I wasnt ignoring his logic... Its just no one has even given me good references or anything to help transition the direction of the thread. Its a brief example put in different words from a video or sonething found on wikipedia.. If people on these forums are genuine enthuists in this field and have a lot of experience in these fields then they should help by allowing me to improve my references and direction...

 

Billy if I am misleading this young man then please correct me. I don't think anything I have said outside of speculation is outside the standard model, I'm just trying to help. I can see your frustration but why vent on me its not like you have commented at all on anything I have communicated or given me a chance to ignore your perfect guidance lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I haven't voiced any of the misconceptions you just listed for "blind" people, what speculation I made I called speculation and used only for the benefit of the person I was replying to. Had I been discussing cosmology with someone with a degree on the subject I wouldn't need to use any speculations to make any points I could just sit back and nod my head.... sheesh!

Now can I get back to the subject or does anyone else want to chip in while we're trolling instead of learning anything?

I shouldn't have used absolute zero speaking of pre-inflation actually, see that article tells us what happens NOW as in inside the formed universe you have to remember there were no laws of physics before the universe was born.. there was just nothing. Whatever spawned space and time happened on a quantum and unified level, then all the forces were combined. Everything was everywhere at the same moment kind of...

 

Alright. So space and time are after the bang. I can understand thst. In fact I believe I may be miscommunicating why I think that there must have been something prior to our universe. Its an anomoly that all this energy existed but you call it nothing. Everything I have read about the big bang puts a label on it saying that this atom sized thing (in lack of other words) expanded intensely.. Larger than earth in the blink of an eye. There had to be something according to its own logic! A atom sized thing capable of creating a universe isnt nothing.. Its a thing.

So why cant that thing be governed by some kind of logic? Is that even an appropriate question?

 

It is not possible to explain the geometry of space in the universe to you with words because you think that only Euclidian geometer is real, exist. E. g. you believe that parallel lines cannot cross or curve and do not realize that this is only a consequence of the axioms ASSUMED for Euclidian and not a fact of nature. All mathematics, geometry included, is based on assumed axioms. It so happens that a Non-Euclidian geometry better describes the very large space of the universe.

Also, I can’t educated you much in this, even with math, as I have forgotten too much of what I knew about Non Euclidian geometer forty or more years ago. Thus, if you want to understand the geometry of space, don’t ask for it to be explained to you in your present state. Instead accept AlphaNumeric’s offer:
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.”
And try to find a teacher to guide you in your years of study. General relativity is sort of like a priest hood, but open to anyone willing to work hard; however, there is “No royal road to knowledge” that lets you understand after reading a page of words.

 

I guess I do owe you an apology - I was more commenting on the interaction between you two - That was encouraging RickyH to post errors and ignore some hard to believe facts I (and AlphaNumeric) had given him. I did re read your posts and found one thing to comment on:

You have not said anything that was blatantly wrong, but some things were at least misleading:
In Post 58 you said: “well we can't be sure past the CMB because there was no light”

Initially, no matter existed, only intense energy, so intense that if there were matter, it would be destroyed, reduced to energy. I assume this energy is best thought of as electromagnetic waves, of extremely short wave lengths, shorter than the highest energy gamma ray ever seen, but I am not well versed in early cosmology – just guessing here. Thus a minute fraction of this energy probably was “light” yes visible light, as I assume the spectral distribution of this EM energy was quite like that of a black body with unimaginably high temperature. It is a characteristic of black body radiation that at ANY wave length, even those much longer than the peak, the intensity increases with temperature, so if that primordial energy was EM waves, then the visible light intensity was far greater than at the surface of the hottest star.

Later when the universe was larger and cooler hydrogen and helium, a fully ionized plasma, formed from the sea of nuclear particles. With a little more cooling, some of the free electrons were captured by the protons and He nucleus. This surely make light. I would be inclined to think it must have at least resembled the discrete line spectral were seen form these gases today, but if the density was very high, then it may have initially been a continuum, not discrete lines as in a very dense plasma, there is so much mutual interactions that the upper states of radiative transitions are highly disturbed – not at the energy levels of the isolated atoms. My experimental Ph.D. was related to this in a dense Argon plasma – I measured the broadening of the lines (and even the shift of their peaks) caused by the electric fields of free electrons passing near an atom which was radiating. (This effect is called Stark broadening.) I was the first to do this for the lines coming from an ion. The effect is greater for the positive ions in relatively cold dense plasmas as the electron curves a little in the positive ion's field - has longer lasting "near by" effect.

One aspect of the CBR, of concern to me, is due to the fact that when this plasma was dense, even if well ionized, the radiation emitted by one atom did not travel very far before it was reabsorbed by another. Eventually, however, the density fell enough for the typical photon to travel great distances before it was reabsorbed and then the CBR was freed from the gas clouds that were beginning to form under the influence of the mutual gravity. Thus, I would expect the CBR to still show peaks due to the original line spectra of hydrogen (greatly shifted into long wavelengths microwaves), but still not the black body radiation that is observed. Thus something is wrong either with my “facts” (i.e. there are still traces of the line radiation in the CBR) or my understanding of how the CBR formed.

----------------
Your post 53, is OK, even presents come facts correctly, and clearly last part is labeled “speculation’ but can be misunderstood to be implying that space existed before the big bang with some information that help guide /cause the inflation. However, it seems to have mislead RickyH as in the next post he states: “Which translates to it having a temperature and there for it contains matter. However I don’t 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.e. he thinks temperatures can only exist when matter does and that the laws of physics are evolving, which may be true but you were not stating that. Of course you cannot be held responsible for his assumptions / speculations.

 

Billy,

Now I can respect that entirely, it does seem I may have inserted some confusion by inserting my own speculations in a kind of vague manner lol. Thank you very much I've always enjoyed your input here, very enlightening.

Ricky,

I think you are looking for a plausible argument for cyclic universe? Now please take this with a grain of salt because its my own condensed version of such theories with a little speculation thrown in.

I don't think we can say for sure if anything didn't exist prior to the big bang, however we can say that all the matter we see was born at that time. I think personally that the most plausible theories for a cyclic universe are extra dimensional in nature, my personal favorite cyclic universe speculation is based on string theory and basically says this universe was born into a new space/time that runs perpendicular to a parent universes space/time and was spawned from a black hole in said universe. It also goes on to say black holes in our universe spawn their own little big bangs. Its based on the assumption that the arrow of time cannot be reversed, that as space and time begins to bend back on itself the extreme forces basically break out into extra dimensions along a perpendicular timeline. It would be cool if a theory showing mathmatical evidence it may be possible to have these extra dimensional perpendicular timelines, what intrigues me about the notion is that it implies that past, present, and future can all exist at the same point and it also implies matter can be recycled and reconfigured.

That one is very confusing to think about though and is most likely not accurate. Now don't take anything from that other than my first point that it may be possible to have a big bang and still have a cycle because the matter we see may be recycled and also because space could have multiple dimensions we cannot detect and it could be from those dimensions the universe came. You can read about it and other cosmologies similar more akin to string theory from this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_universe#Fecund_universes I tend to favor the Susskind line of thought. Reading will be your best tool on that subject.

I would research membrane theory thats a pretty interesting theory with more "before the beginning" stuff. Speculating can be fun but its important to remember we should only do so willing to stand corrected and be wrong as well as research on our own and look for problems with our ideas first and foremost ourselves.

 

Actually, I would love to see alphas books. Ny wife would kove for me to read more