"THE BIG BANG" A Center of Nothing or Everything?

[rigney]

Whether we talk about "the beginning" of our universe as a huge explosion or an instantaneous expansion, how could either have happened without a center? I haven't a clue, but does it matter? Perhaps some day it may. At best, and even with using the "raisin bread" scenario along with the popular expansion theory; why would there have not been a center to this whole enchilada? Unless general math forsakes me completely; somewhere there is a galaxy with people?, perhaps not unlike us sitting at the "exact center" of this expansion saying, why is everything moving away from us? But! what if it was simply a huge explosion and everything had been thrown out in all directions? Would there have been a center? I believe so. Would there today be a galaxy sitting at the exact center? I think not. An explosion under such conditions demands everything move away at a tremendous speed, yet, creating an ever expanding void. So the closest any matter could be to the center of our universe today would be (?) billion of light years from that point. Either postulation could bring the Higgs equation into the picture. I don't know, and am only asking?

Edited January 25, 2011 by rigney

[Klaynos]

Imagine a balloon.

 

Put some dots on the balloon.

 

Blow the balloon up.

 

The surface of the balloon is space, it is expanding, the dots are getting further apart from each other. Yet there is no centre to the balloon surface...

 

If you imagine the balloon shrinking until it is tiny tiny tiny you can see how the big bang happened everywhere...

 

The problem here is one that is often the case, a failure of language, you're trying to talk about something that is VERY VERY different from our every day experience using everyday words, there just arn't the words or even the concepts a lot of the time to explain clearly what is meant.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think its accurate to say the center of the Big Bang is 15 billion years ago.

[rigney]

Imagine a balloon.

 

Put some dots on the balloon.

 

Blow the balloon up.

 

The surface of the balloon is space, it is expanding, the dots are getting further apart from each other. Yet there is no centre to the balloon surface...

 

If you imagine the balloon shrinking until it is tiny tiny tiny you can see how the big bang happened everywhere...

 

The problem here is one that is often the case, a failure of language, you're trying to talk about something that is VERY VERY different from our every day experience using everyday words, there just arn't the words or even the concepts a lot of the time to explain clearly what is meant.

 

Why is there such a fetish for insisting on attaching dots to a balloons surface and blowing it up to demonstrate expansion? If in fact expansion is what is happening, isn't everything within the balloon also expanding? I'm talking about space that is, not things. You'll have to excuse my ignorance but I simply can't grasp the idea of just the surface of a balloon expanding without dragging along its contents at the same time.( other galaxies, etc.) At best, if we can see from our vantage point, 13, 14, or even 15, billion light years in any direction, it has to mean that not all of us are riding the crest of this outer perimiter of a"space odyessy.". Read that somewhere! Edited January 25, 2011 by rigney

[Klaynos]

There is no inside the balloon... in the analogy the universe is just the surface.

 

Analogies like this are popular because language falls down we do not happen across things like this normally so we've never invented words for it.

[Mr Skeptic]

Why is there such a fetish for insisting on attaching dots to a balloons surface and blowing it up to demonstrate expansion?

 

Same reason that people have a fetish for not understanding 4 dimensional non-euclidian geometry.

[rigney]

Same reason that people have a fetish for not understanding 4 dimensional non-euclidian geometry.

 

Would you run that by me in laymans terms. I've said on several occasions that I'm here to learn, not to get involved in an argument with those of you with more knowledgeable than me. Why the arcane wording? I'm not trying to draw someone out to prove a point. Ignorance belongs to me. Questions are all I have. Wish I could answer a couple of them on my own. Edited January 25, 2011 by rigney

[Klaynos]

Would you run that by me in laymans terms. I've said on several occasions that I'm here to learn, not to get involved in an argument with those of you with more knowledgeable than me. Why the arcane wording? I'm not trying to draw someone out to prove a point. Ignorance belongs to me. Questions are all I have. Wish I could answer a couple of them on my own.

 

I think Mr skeptic's point was that laymans terms do not exist for these concepts.

[rigney]

I think Mr skeptic's point was that laymans terms do not exist for these concepts.

 

If that's supposed to be kissy kissy, I'm not impressed. And laymans questions, why the hell should they not be considered? Who do you think pays for all of the scientific work that remains in limbo? Don't let your intellect run off to where you think 'your" theories are the only solutions to physicist's problems. Edited January 26, 2011 by rigney

[StringJunky]

If that's supposed to be kissy kissy, I'm not impressed. And laymans terms, should they not even be considered as rational? Who do you think pays for all of the scientific work that remains in limbo? Don't let your intellect run off to where you think 'your" theories are the only solutions to physicist's problems.

 

Rigney

 

Klaynos is far from an elitist intellectual...I have found his answers to many questions in the past to be very clear and uncryptic. The fact is this subject is more often than not described in mathematical terms and if one doesn't have the requisite understanding of the maths then we have to accept the limited verbal descriptions that can be given to us by those that do understand it mathematically...myself included!

 

To quote swansont: It doesn't have to make sense to be true.

Edited January 26, 2011 by StringJunky

[Mr Skeptic]

I tried to say it as simply and clearly as possible. I thought I was using layman terminology, after all I learned about Euclidean geometry in high school. If not, then what do laymen call "geometry where the sum of the angles of a triangle need not add up to 180 degrees, parallel lines might intersect, etc"? However, even though I have some idea of the mathematical implications, it still helps me to visualize by comparing to familiar shapes like spheres and saddles, depending on whether we're having the angles add up to more or less than 180 degrees. And once you start talking about such geometries and stretching of them, there is even less room for comparison... hence the popularity of balloon comparisons.

[rigney]

#3 Today, 12:45 PM Mr Skeptic

iDon't-Believe-You I think its accurate to say the center of the Big Bang is 15 billion years ago.

 

#5 Today, 04:19 PM Klaynos

Insert Witty Comment There is no inside the balloon... in the analogy the universe is just the surface.

Analogies like this are popular because language falls down we do not happen across things like this normally so we've never invented words for it.

 

#6 Today, 04:44 PM Mr Skeptic

iDon't-Believe-You rigney, on 25 January 2011 - 02:54 PM, said:

Why is there such a fetish for insisting on attaching dots to a balloons surface and blowing it up to demonstrate expansion?

Same reason that people have a fetish for not understanding 4 dimensional non-euclidian geometry.

 

#11 Today, 09:22 PM Mr Skeptic

iDon't-Believe-You I tried to say it as simply and clearly as possible. I thought I was using layman terminology, after all I learned about Euclidean geometry in high school. If not, then what do laymen call "geometry where the sum of the angles of a triangle need not add up to 180 degrees, parallel lines might intersect, etc"? However, even though I have some idea of the mathematical implications, it still helps me to visualize by comparing to familiar shapes like spheres and saddles, depending on whether we're having the angles add up to more or less than 180 degrees. And once you start talking about such geometries and stretching of them, there is even less room for comparison... hence the popularity of balloon comparisons.

 

Read it over! But even as a laymen, should I simply nod my head up and down and leave it go unchallenged?

Edited January 26, 2011 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

Nod your head up and down and leave it unchallenged, or learn enough to understand what is being said, whichever you prefer. Some things are just plain complicated. If you want to know the actual details of general relativity we'd be talking about tensors and manifolds rather than balloons and high school geometry concepts. We're not some silly English professors using big long words unnecessarily to obfuscate, it is simply a difficult concept.

[Klaynos]

If that's supposed to be kissy kissy, I'm not impressed. And laymans questions, why the hell should they not be considered? Who do you think pays for all of the scientific work that remains in limbo? Don't let your intellect run off to where you think 'your" theories are the only solutions to physicist's problems.

 

I did not mean it like that at all. I was trying to explain why we use strange, and seemingly confusing analogies... These concepts fall outside what humans have evolved to understand or deal with, we have never needed the words to describe them to each other so we have to construct stories which try and explain what our models tell us is how the universe works. We should try our hardest to tell everyone what we do, what we find and how we do it. I wish everyone was as interested in science as I am and the only way to make that happen is to tell them how interesting it is.

 

To get a full understanding of GR (I have nothing like that - and I suspect it would be impossible to get anything more than a full understanding of a very specific part of GR) or pretty much any aspect of physics you need to dedicate your life to it and even after a lifetime you will most likely have more unanswered questions than answered questions

 

If we consider newtonian mechanics, we are familiar with it. We live in a classical world, and yet some things still cause us surprise, psydo forces for example... And to understand it fully you need to be able to solve multiple order differential equations... of course you can re-derive everything in say legrangian mechanics which is also classical, but you have no use for forces you do everything using energies, it makes the maths a lot easier, but is conceptually harder... Pushing a tray on ice becomes an energy problem, any discussion of the forces would be incorrect.

 

Newtonian and Legrangian mechanics are completely consistent with one another though, and that takes even more getting your head around... and these are things we are used to dealing with when we walk around every day or catching a ball say...

[rigney]

Nod your head up and down and leave it unchallenged, or learn enough to understand what is being said, whichever you prefer. Some things are just plain complicated. If you want to know the actual details of general relativity we'd be talking about tensors and manifolds rather than balloons and high school geometry concepts. We're not some silly English professors using big long words unnecessarily to obfuscate, it is simply a difficult concept.

 

It isn't the complexity of physics that bother me, since I know absolutely nothing about them, but the way they are sometimes explained. Read this about an hour or so ago and found it interesting. It may be only a fourth grade primer to some, but it was news to me.

 

http://homepage.mac.com/stevepur/physics/riding/Riding_session_6.pdf

 

I did not mean it like that at all. I was trying to explain why we use strange, and seemingly confusing analogies... These concepts fall outside what humans have evolved to understand or deal with, we have never needed the words to describe them to each other so we have to construct stories which try and explain what our models tell us is how the universe works. We should try our hardest to tell everyone what we do, what we find and how we do it. I wish everyone was as interested in science as I am and the only way to make that happen is to tell them how interesting it is.

 

To get a full understanding of GR (I have nothing like that - and I suspect it would be impossible to get anything more than a full understanding of a very specific part of GR) or pretty much any aspect of physics you need to dedicate your life to it and even after a lifetime you will most likely have more unanswered questions than answered questions

 

If we consider newtonian mechanics, we are familiar with it. We live in a classical world, and yet some things still cause us surprise, psydo forces for example... And to understand it fully you need to be able to solve multiple order differential equations... of course you can re-derive everything in say legrangian mechanics which is also classical, but you have no use for forces you do everything using energies, it makes the maths a lot easier, but is conceptually harder... Pushing a tray on ice becomes an energy problem, any discussion of the forces would be incorrect.

 

Newtonian and Legrangian mechanics are completely consistent with one another though, and that takes even more getting your head around... and these are things we are used to dealing with when we walk around every day or catching a ball say...

 

Didn't think you were being hard-nosed, it's just that I don't understand the mechanics of a convex, saddle shaped, or a flat dimensional demonstration of the universe. The polka dots on the balloon? I believe the astronomer Alex Filippenko dreamed that up some years back and has used it ever since along with his stretch band to describe red shift and expansion. I do read, but as I said earlier, it's a little late in the game for me to be going into physics. Mechanically I understand just about anything that is explained to me. But to say there is no inside to something that has an out side, is mind bending ay best. Edited January 26, 2011 by rigney

[jackson33]

rigney; I generally read threads such as yours, noting that for some reason lately they are increasing but am always reluctant to respond. Your interest or desire to understand the unexplainable (opinion) is nothing new and over 50+ years I've followed articles and discussions on this issue. I do have one point, I don't think will upset the pro-BBT advocates, noting here I remain a sceptic and that's what acceptable today was not what was 20 years ago or do I believe will it be in maybe a few years.

 

Before the telescope, our Universe was thought to be the few thousand stars seen. As technology and actual deployments of them into space has advanced have developed, what has been seen has changed many things, not excluding the age of the Universe if indeed somehow created through the BB Theory. As your article suggested what's seen 10BLY away, with clarity would have debunked BBT in total many times during it's short life span. To say this a little differently, what was seen beyond certain points in the past as not clear and using artist illustrations of what could be, turned out not to be the case. As these different understandings and questions have evolved, many new theories have evolved, a good many not explainable in themselves without the BBT base to work with and where many of your questions involve.

 

Here is a very brief history of the telescope and it's effect on astronomy;

 

http://www.400years.org/en/for_teachers/teaching_ideas.php

 

Now to my one point; The James Webb Space Telescope should be activated around mid-2015. There are many good articles available with a google search, including this one. It will be a orbit a million miles from earth and should give a much clearer actual view (no artist simulations required) and IMO could either refute BBT or make me a believer. For instance, those galaxy now clear to 10BLY away, very similar to our own MW which originally did NOT fit BBT, might be observed to a more distant point.

 

I don't want to further confuse the issue for you or argue any points on this forum, but the actual photons received from distant locations are extremely low. taken in short time exposures over days or longer and any distortions of energy received could be greatly eliminated.

 

 

The James Webb Space Telescope is the next-generation premier space observatory, exploring deep space phenomena from distant galaxies to nearby planets and stars. The Webb Telescope will give scientists clues about the formation of the universe and the evolution of our own solar system, from the first light after the Big Bang to the formation of star systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth. It is expected to launch in 2014. The telescope is a joint project of NASA, the European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency.[/Quote]

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/webb_simulator.html

 

As to a geographical center of the Universe and as you said is not important to you understanding it's existence; What's usually used is that an expanding unit would have a moving center or undeterminable without specific information. I think this confusion for us laymen, is that the center of the known Universe logically does put the MW in the center. Even as the experts say, whatever is seen in any direction is seemingly consistent to any direction. What's not said or IMO provable, is that where ever planet earth was in the Universe, in one of those 10BLY galaxy or here would be the same, which I do agree with and have often used in SSU/BBT arguments...

[rigney]

rigney; I generally read threads such as yours, noting that for some reason lately they are increasing but am always reluctant to respond. Your interest or desire to understand the unexplainable (opinion) is nothing new and over 50+ years I've followed articles and discussions on this issue. I do have one point, I don't think will upset the pro-BBT advocates, noting here I remain a sceptic and that's what acceptable today was not what was 20 years ago or do I believe will it be in maybe a few years.

 

Before the telescope, our Universe was thought to be the few thousand stars seen. As technology and actual deployments of them into space has advanced have developed, what has been seen has changed many things, not excluding the age of the Universe if indeed somehow created through the BB Theory. As your article suggested what's seen 10BLY away, with clarity would have debunked BBT in total many times during it's short life span. To say this a little differently, what was seen beyond certain points in the past as not clear and using artist illustrations of what could be, turned out not to be the case. As these different understandings and questions have evolved, many new theories have evolved, a good many not explainable in themselves without the BBT base to work with and where many of your questions involve.

 

Here is a very brief history of the telescope and it's effect on astronomy;

 

http://www.400years.org/en/for_teachers/teaching_ideas.php

 

Now to my one point; The James Webb Space Telescope should be activated around mid-2015. There are many good articles available with a google search, including this one. It will be a orbit a million miles from earth and should give a much clearer actual view (no artist simulations required) and IMO could either refute BBT or make me a believer. For instance, those galaxy now clear to 10BLY away, very similar to our own MW which originally did NOT fit BBT, might be observed to a more distant point.

 

I don't want to further confuse the issue for you or argue any points on this forum, but the actual photons received from distant locations are extremely low. taken in short time exposures over days or longer and any distortions of energy received could be greatly eliminated.

 

 

 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/webb_simulator.html

 

As to a geographical center of the Universe and as you said is not important to you understanding it's existence; What's usually used is that an expanding unit would have a moving center or undeterminable without specific information. I think this confusion for us laymen, is that the center of the known Universe logically does put the MW in the center. Even as the experts say, whatever is seen in any direction is seemingly consistent to any direction. What's not said or IMO provable, is that where ever planet earth was in the Universe, in one of those 10BLY galaxy or here would be the same, which I do agree with and have often used in SSU/BBT arguments...

 

Glad you came aboard Jackson, I was feeling kind of lonely. But I'm not here trying to be counterintuitive to these having a firm grasp on physics, only questioning as to my ignorance. I really don't expect explicit answers to something that happened billions of light years ago. These guys are sharp and I appreciate their intellect, just not in a condenscending manner of which I don't believe they realize. In my time frame, I get pissed when someone tells me that I should read up on the issues and relate them to a better understanding. I'll not even try going there! I've read tons of material and realize that I'm whipping a dead horse, "me". If you've looked at this post with even the slightest notion of a professional thought, I put a couple videos in #12 that gave me more insight into our universe than anything I could have ever imagined. Both guys related information I thought was impossibe. To me, yes our universe is part of a never-ending cycle, and having nothing to do with philosophy. Edited January 26, 2011 by rigney

[Spyman]

Why is there such a fetish for insisting on attaching dots to a balloons surface and blowing it up to demonstrate expansion? If in fact expansion is what is happening, isn't everything within the balloon also expanding? I'm talking about space that is, not things. You'll have to excuse my ignorance but I simply can't grasp the idea of just the surface of a balloon expanding without dragging along its contents at the same time.( other galaxies, etc.) At best, if we can see from our vantage point, 13, 14, or even 15, billion light years in any direction, it has to mean that not all of us are riding the crest of this outer perimiter of a"space odyessy.". Read that somewhere!

If you take only one dimension, then all you have is a line and dots can move along this line to increase or decrease their relative distance, but if the line itself is able to stretch and contract then distances between dots can change without the dots themselves moving.

 

If we curve this lonely dimension we get a circle where the line becomes the circumference, but the dots can still only move along the line, they can not leave their dimension and neither go inside or outside of the circle. The circumference can still be able to stretch and contract and change distances without movement.

 

If you take two of these dimensions and 'glue' them together we get an area where the dots can roam around but they are still not able to leave their dimensions and visit the outside like above or below. Similar when we curve both of these dimensions we get a sphere where the area becomes the surface, but the dots are still not able to visit the inside or the outside, they are stuck in both of their two dimensions on the surface.

 

This two dimensional sphere is like the balloon analogy, when we blow up the balloon the surface need to stretch and distances between stationary dots would increase even if they don't move relative the surface.

 

Now if you take three dimensions and both curve and 'glue' them together, then you would get a hypersphere with a volume closed around similar to the circle and the sphere. If the radius of this 3-sphere would grow then dots inside this space would be able to observe distances between stationary objects to increase, but they can't leave their dimensions and visit the inside or outside, because all three dimensions: front/back, left/right and up/down are curved around so there is no direction pointing toward neither the inside or the outside.

[rigney]

Now if you take three dimensions and both curve and 'glue' them together, then you would get a hypersphere with a volume closed around similar to the circle and the sphere. If the radius of this 3-sphere would grow then dots inside this space would be able to observe distances between stationary objects to increase, but they can't leave their dimensions and visit the inside or outside, because all three dimensions: front/back, left/right and up/down are curved around so there is no direction pointing toward neither the inside or the outside.

 

Believe me, your explanation is likely to be as close as I will ever come to understanding Einsteins principles of relativity. But I'm only a theorist (dreamer) who believe there is something more than just numbers. Math and Physics? No! I can't go there. But if I may explain my position? I believe after a short pause, less than a Pico-Pico second, our universe began a new cycle. Call it the Big Bang, Creation or what ever. But it no doubt happened. Our world is here and so are we. If the heat generated at that initial moment was anything like they are findings at the Cern labs in their latest experiments, it was more than just a big bang. Perhaps in the trillions of degrees K. Pressure of such heat would have caused expansion to the nth degree? The first of the two videos I added to #12 says that the speed may have been 'many times" that of light. Since I cant argue the point, I will accept it. Now comes the tricky part that gets me in trouble each time I voice it. Why is our universe relegated to an encapsulation of its own design? Can't it just be a free wheeling universe that will eventually find its way back home, even if only in piece and parts and trillions of years from now? Natures abax governing universal design will say when and how it is to happen, not us. Me, I just love a mystery.

 

Now if you take three dimensions and both curve and 'glue' them together, then you would get a hypersphere with a volume closed around similar to the circle and the sphere. If the radius of this 3-sphere would grow then dots inside this space would be able to observe distances between stationary objects to increase, but they can't leave their dimensions and visit the inside or outside, because all three dimensions: front/back, left/right and up/down are curved around so there is no direction pointing toward neither the inside or the outside.

 

Believe me, your explanation is likely to be as close as I will ever come to understanding Einsteins principles of relativity. But I'm only a theorist (dreamer) who believe there is something more than just numbers. Math and Physics? No! I can't go there. But if I may explain my position? I believe after a short pause, less than a Pico-Pico second, our universe began a new cycle. Call it the Big Bang, Creation or what ever. But it no doubt happened. Our world is here and so are we. If the heat generated at that initial moment was anything like they are findings at the Cern labs in their latest experiments, it was more than just a big bang. Perhaps in the trillions of degrees K. Pressure of such heat would have caused expansion to the nth degree? The first of the two videos I added to #12 says that the speed may have been 'many times" that of light. Since I cant argue the point, I will accept it. Now comes the tricky part that gets me in trouble each time I voice it. Why is our universe relegated to an encapsulation of its own design? Can't it just be a free wheeling universe that will eventually find its way back home, even if only in piece and parts and trillions of years from now? Natures abax governing universal design will say when and how it is to happen, not us. Me, I just love a mystery.