Agent thinks there is an "approximate site" of the BB in our space

[YT2095]

say all you want about "beliefs" but when it comes to the BB and it`s origins, that`s all ANY of you have anyway!

 

is what I actually said, and that much is indeed True!

[Bettina]

ok, so take how big the Universe is NOW, and shrink it back 12 Billion LY, how big was it then?

 

This has bothered me since day one. I've never been able to resolve "The BB happened everywhere at the same time" scenario, and I guess I never will. I find it interesting that you, YT, buck this trend also.

 

Lately, I've been seeing more articles about the void, another universe next to ours, etc, and still wonder about Carl Sagan's soap bubbles but I still believe that our BB had a point of origin and expanded from that point and if we could turn back the clock, it would end up at that point once again.

 

Bee

[Klaynos]

is what I actually said, and that much is indeed True!

 

Yes, you said "that's all ANY of you have"... belife, not evidence....

 

(I had a post here apologising but I've just re-re-read it, of course I might just be so tired I completely can't understand)

 

I think this might be me misinterpreting what you meant.

[Dr.CWho]

Who is to say there isn't a successive frame of many BB's every one of our nano-seconds? (Ref: Multiversal Truths... I'll have to look up the link to it, perhaps in the Inspire database...)

 

From the frame of reference of an observer in motion around a rotating universe, the universe would seem static in rotation, though it could be perceived as expanding. Rotation beyond a certain radius would be undetectable because it would out of synch with us.

 

Dr. CWho

[Edtharan]

This has bothered me since day one. I've never been able to resolve "The BB happened everywhere at the same time" scenario, and I guess I never will.

It would be better stated that the Big Bang occured everywhere in this Universe. There are other theories (brane theory) that allow for co-ordinate systems outside this Universe, but even then the Big Bang occured everywhere in this Universe dispite the co-ordinate system outside our Universe.

 

Now a Balloon is not necessarily a good analogy, but I will use it if you remember that it is only an analogy and so pushing it too far will break it.

 

Think about a balloon that has 0 radius. This is the singularity. If you were to find the surface area of the balloon at this point it would also be 0.

 

For this example, the surface of the balloon is supposed to represent 3 dimensional space and the size of the balloon (how inflated it is) is to represent Time (4th dimension).

 

SO at this point, the size of 3D space (the surface area of the balloon is 0: There is no space. And the radius of the balloon is also 0: There is no Time.

 

So at this point ther is no time or space and we have a singularity.

 

Now we start inflating the balloon. In the real universe this would have been an injection of energy (which could be cuased by a breaking of a symetry or maybe a different phenomena - this is where a lot of the differnet theories of the big bang differ and what a lot of research about the BB is occuring around this too).

 

As sson as the balloon starts to inflate, we no longer have a singulatiry. Also, the balloon now has a radius (Time) and therefore a surface area (Space).

 

Now, at what point on the surface of the balloon was the balloon a singularity?

 

Answer: Everywhere.

 

What existed before the singularity?

 

Answer: As time is the radius of the balloon, then there was no "Before" as this would mean that the balloon had a negative radius.

 

I hope that helps your understanding.

[YT2095]

but that`s the whole problem, you see even a Balloon has a Center.

[Edtharan]

but that`s the whole problem, you see even a Balloon has a Center.

No. Where on the surface of the balloon is the centre?

 

Yes, the Universe has a 4+D centre, we call that the Singularity at the Big Bang. But as a 3D position (that is the surface of the balloon) there is no centre.

 

This is where you are getting confused. You are getting confused between the Balloon begin a 3 D objects in a 4+D Universe, and the fact that the analogy has to drop some dimensions (that the 4+d is now a 3D model). I did try to explain this in the post.

[YT2095]

so you`re saying the Universe is Flat(ish)?

 

in the same way I could say my garden is "Flat" even though we live on a round planet, I use the word "Flat" for wants of a better word.

[swansont]

so you`re saying the Universe is Flat(ish)?

 

in the same way I could say my garden is "Flat" even though we live on a round planet, I use the word "Flat" for wants of a better word.

 

It's a little more complicated than that. The surface of the earth will look round to us, when we pay attention (ships disappearing below the horizon, etc). But the situation with the balloon analogy is that the any travel on the balloon seems to be in a straight line — they would not notice any curvature. If they sent a laser beam out, it would naturally follow the surface of the balloon. (And potentially hit themselves in the back of the head, which would be one way they could tell their world was curved and closed in on itself)

 

But it's hard to visualize 3D curvature this way, so we look at 2D curvature. It basically just means that it's non-Cartesian. "Straight" lines aren't straight, or the shortest distance between two points isn't what we would see as a straight line

[YT2095]

so if we and Everything is on the "surface" of this balloon, then by extension What is bellow this surface or above it?

 

 

"Straight" lines aren't straight, or the shortest distance between two points isn't what we would see as a straight line

 

I think I get that, is it because of Gravity making space more dense in some areas, so that even though you are moving in a straight line according to the space around you, you are REALLY taking a Curved path.

a bit like how you can see an object either side of a star making it Look like 2 items , but it`s really only a Single item but light gets bent relative to US but remains perfectly straight to itself relative to the space it`s moving in.

[iNow]

so if we and Everything is on the "surface" of this balloon, then by extension What is bellow this surface or above it?

You can't take the analogy that far. There is no "under" or "above" the universe. It's all "surface."

 

That is why analogies fail. It causes other questions like yours above, which result from the analagoy itself, not an understanding (or lack there) of the structure of the universe.

[YT2095]

well I`m actually thinking that it`s not a Smooth surface at all, but rather something Textured like a strawberry, and the dips in the surface would be High density matter like stars and such.

[Edtharan]

so if we and Everything is on the "surface" of this balloon, then by extension What is bellow this surface or above it?

 

You can't take the analogy that far. There is no "under" or "above" the universe. It's all "surface."

Actually you can take it that far.

 

What is above the surface of the balloon is the future, and what is below is the past.

 

As I stated in the preamble, the radius of the balloon represents Time (you did read my post didn't you ).

 

That is why analogies fail. It causes other questions like yours above, which result from the analagoy itself, not an understanding (or lack there) of the structure of the universe.

Yes, I even mentioned this in the preamble to the analogy.

 

Now a Balloon is not necessarily a good analogy, but I will use it if you remember that it is only an analogy and so pushing it too far will break it.

 

well I`m actually thinking that it`s not a Smooth surface at all, but rather something Textured like a strawberry, and the dips in the surface would be High density matter like stars and such.

Yes, this would be better, but the dips, if scaled to the size of a balloon would not even be as big as the variations in the rubber of an actual balloon, let alone a strawberry.

 

Also, the universe might not be spherical like a balloon, it might have some other, more complex shape (doughnut, knot, dodecahedron, etc). Actually something that I just read a few days ago (in new scientist) could indicate that the universe might just be dodecahedron shaped .

[YT2095]

that makes much more sense, but Now I`m thinking about these dips and high grav areas and wonder what something like SN2006gy would have looked like, or a Black hole on this surface?

 

 

so NOW (the present) is the surface and moving along this surface is or 3d travel that we`re used to, that makes sense.

so if you looked at it with 4D eyes, the balloon would be a solid as you could look at all times at once.

[JohnB]

If I may put in a suggestion.

 

The reason people think the BB was somewhere near here is that from earth everything is seen to be moving away. This view is only possible from near the centre of an explosion.

 

However, when I realised that the view was exactly the same no matter where in the universe you stand, it logically followed that all points in the universe were at the centre of the BB from their point of view.

 

It became a matter of frames of reference, like relativity. If you are on the ship, you see your time as normal and time on the planet speed up. If you are on the planet, your time is normal and the time on the ship speeds up. Neither of these obsevations is "true" from the POV of an outside obsever because there can't be an outside observer. As soon as you observe, you become part of the frame of reference.

 

Likewise, if I'm on earth, I see earth as the centre of the BB and everything else moving away but if I'm in a galaxy far, far away I see it as the centre of the BB and everything else moving away from it. Like relativity, neither is "true" from the POV of an outside observer because any observer immediately becomes involved in the frames of reference and sees himself at the centre of the BB with the other two points moving away from him.

[iNow]

What is above the surface of the balloon is the future, and what is below is the past.

 

As I stated in the preamble, the radius of the balloon represents Time (you did read my post didn't you ).

Indeed...

 

My approach, however, is that the past and the future are both contained within the present, hence... it's all surface.

 

See my username for precedent on the matter.

 

[math]\infty now[/math]

[Bettina]

No. Where on the surface of the balloon is the centre?

 

Yes, the Universe has a 4+D centre, we call that the Singularity at the Big Bang. But as a 3D position (that is the surface of the balloon) there is no centre.

 

This is where you are getting confused. You are getting confused between the Balloon begin a 3 D objects in a 4+D Universe, and the fact that the analogy has to drop some dimensions (that the 4+d is now a 3D model). I did try to explain this in the post.

 

Hi Edtharan, thanks for the reply and explanation The 4+D center is what I was trying to get at and I understand the center on the surface does not exist.

 

I always imagined the universe being a sphere and further imagined a child dipping a plastic wand into a bottle of "Super Bubble Solution" and gently blowing a bubble.

 

As she continues to blow into the wand, you would see an inflating sphere that has nothing inside, nothing outside, but yet contains colorful swirls on it's surface all moving away from each other as the bubble expands.

 

Sometimes, if the bubble is large and a breeze exists, the bubble would be grossly mishaped, and although the surface and swirls remain intact, the center would be difficult to determine.

 

I also remember that WMAP produced omega numbers that showed the universe had a curvature.

 

Bee

[Martin]

...I also remember that WMAP produced omega numbers that showed the universe had a curvature.

 

Bee

 

Yes, and the situation is better now than back in 2006 when we talked about this before. "better" from the point of view of people who like to picture finite curved space with Omega > 1 (me too actually)

 

Back then when the 3-year WMAP results first came out the 68 percent confidence interval was something like [1.003, 1.027]

but they did some more analysis and before the report was published hardcopy they changed it to [1.010, 1.041]

 

so the revision was in the "right" direction.

 

but they still say that the case Omega=1 exactly (the infinite space case) cannot be ruled out---basically because 68 percent is not high enough confidence. there is still too much uncertainty.

========================

 

I like the image you gave of the bubble. It seems visually perfect

[Cmac22]

If I may put in a suggestion.

 

The reason people think the BB was somewhere near here is that from earth everything is seen to be moving away. This view is only possible from near the centre of an explosion.

 

However, when I realised that the view was exactly the same no matter where in the universe you stand, it logically followed that all points in the universe were at the centre of the BB from their point of view.

 

But, Just because everyone sees expansion from their point of view doesnt mean that there is no center, does it?. take an explosion in mid-air for example. take any point in that explosion while it is still expanding. from that points point of view, "points" farther from the point of explosion are moveing faster, hence are expanding away. however, points closer to the point of explosion, are moving slower than the point you are viewing it from, so they appear to be moving away, when in reality they are moving in the same direction, only slower.

 

in this example, any point you take seems to be the center because all the other points appear to be moving away from it. but its not. however there still IS a center, the point at which the explosion took place.

 

i appologise if this sounds completely rediculouse but this is how i see it.

[iNow]

How does something which has no edges have a center? Without the ability to measure the space between edges, how can one find a center?

 

 

If I asked you what was the center of a forest, you would need to know where the edges were to find that center.

 

The universe doesn't have edges.

[Edtharan]

But, Just because everyone sees expansion from their point of view doesnt mean that there is no center, does it?. take an explosion in mid-air for example. take any point in that explosion while it is still expanding. from that points point of view, "points" farther from the point of explosion are moveing faster, hence are expanding away. however, points closer to the point of explosion, are moving slower than the point you are viewing it from, so they appear to be moving away, when in reality they are moving in the same direction, only slower.

Actually, you could determine if you were on the edge of an "Explosion" as compared to the centre. In the centre all material that is visible will be (on average) moving away at the same rate regardless of the direction you are looking. However, if you are near the edge (even if you can't see the edge), then you will see material moving at different rates depending on the direction that you look.

 

What we see in the sky when we look at the speeds of galaxies receding from us is that no matter which direction we look, at the same distance from us, the galaxies are moving at the smae speed.

 

There are only 2 possible solution that can account for this.

1) We are at the centre of an exploding Universe.

 

or

 

2) There is no centre of the Universe.

 

For other reasons option 1 is ruled out, so therefore we are left only with option (2), which means that there is no centre of the Universe.

[Klaynos]

It's very very bad to compare the big bang to an explosion... very bad indeed... the similarities are very very very few

[Daecon]

ALL of space is the approximate site of the point of the Big Bang.

 

That "point" just happens to have expanded to be the size of the whole Universe.

[insane_alien]

ALL of space is the approximate site of the point of the Big Bang.

 

That "point" just happens to have expanded to be the size of the whole Universe.

 

well, more like the entire universe IS the point

[Daecon]

Or, conversely, the Universe is pointless. But that's more metal than scientific, with regard to physics.

 

Is "metal" the right word for something being meta-y?