36grit Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 I saw a globe of the comsic radiation background left over from the big bang. How faraway is this from earth? How can we see anything beyond the big bang?
ajb Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 The CMBR was coursed by "recombination", which is when electrons and protons formed neutral hydrogen atoms. This happened about 400,000 years after the big bang. Photons before this recombination were not able to travel freely. Optical methods cannot see behind this surface of last scattering. However, neutrinos would have been free before this as well as gravitational waves. It maybe possible to probe closer to the big bang using neutrino telescopes and gravitational wave detectors.
Spyman Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 I saw a globe of the comsic radiation background left over from the big bang. How faraway is this from earth? How can we see anything beyond the big bang? According to standard cosmology the distance of the matter that emitted the CMBR was ~4o million lightyears distant from our location, when the photons took off in our direction and is thought to be some ~45 billion lightyears distant now when they arrive in our observatories. (Cosmos Calculator Omega=0.27 Lambda=0.73 Hubble=71 Redshift=1100)
Realitycheck Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 CMBR is everywhere you look, is the leftover radiation from the last scattering as ajb pointed out, uniformly in every direction throughout the universe, aside from all of the other radiation from any other newer sources.
36grit Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 Is it possible that the BB we study could actually have been a rebang? In other words, could a cross section of time resemble a hard wood stump? With summer grain being inflation and the dark ages and the spring grain being like the star and galaxie season? Is there any way for us to even tell with our current technology?
Spyman Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 The Big Bounce is a theorized scientific model related to the formation of the known Universe. It derives from the cyclic model or oscillatory universe interpretation of the Big Bang where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
36grit Posted January 27, 2011 Author Posted January 27, 2011 I have heard of the big bounce. It was mentioned in the video "The History Of Time". Personally though, I can't help but like the idea of a rebang. A growing universe just seems more natural.
Realitycheck Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) The eventual conclusion you must reach about any type of cyclical universe is that it had to actually begin at some point, everything else is just avoiding the issue. Edited January 28, 2011 by Realitycheck
Mr Skeptic Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 The eventual conclusion you must reach about any type of cyclical universe is that it had to actually begin at some point, everything else is just avoiding the issue. Not really. It would be like asking when did god begin, the answer is it was always there. A cyclic universe is an eternal universe, except that it goes through different phases in a cycle.
Realitycheck Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Not really. It would be like asking when did god begin, the answer is it was always there. A cyclic universe is an eternal universe, except that it goes through different phases in a cycle. Who said anything about God? You're just dodging the answer. Everything has a beginning. Besides, most of us know that since expansion overrid gravity, there is very little evidence for a bounce. Edited January 28, 2011 by Realitycheck -1
michel123456 Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 (...) Everything has a beginning. (...) Give some examples.
zapatos Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 The eventual conclusion you must reach about any type of cyclical universe is that it had to actually begin at some point, everything else is just avoiding the issue. How do you know that? It either had a beginning or it did not. What evidence do you have one way or the other?
Mr Skeptic Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Everything that had a beginning had a beginning. Everything that did not have a beginning did not have a beginning. A cyclic universe could be considered either way, as an eternal universe going through cycles, or as a universe caused by the universe that came before it which in turn was caused by the universe that came before that one, etc. Unless you reject the law of cause and effect, you can only ever have eternal things with no beginning or finite things with an infinite chain of causation.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now