Origins of the Universe

[John316]

I have a question for those who believe that the Universe began with the Big Bang, estimates of the size of the Universe is approximately 13 billion light years from the center of the known Universe to the outer most edges, where they can detect Galaxies, they also use this to determine the age of the Universe, which is approximately 13 billion years, my question is if all matter in the Universe was created by a single explosion, then why is there Galaxies and stars spread from the center of the Universe to the outer limits of the Universe? If an explosion occurred then wouldn't all the debris spread outward, creating a circular band, and in 13 billion years the band would be at what they have determined to be the outer edges of the known universe.

[Phi for All]

The BB wasn't an explosion, it was a rapid expansion from a previously hot, dense state. Everything everywhere expanded at the same time. The space between matter grew until it allowed for enough cooling to develop everything from stars to planets to elements, and space continues to expand around matter even now.

[John316]

As you can see in the image below, the Universe expands out from the center, if it began to expand at the same time there would not be stars and galaxies near the center when the outer reaches of the Universe are 13 billion light years away from the center, it would be a shell. If it began to expand at the same time then all galaxies, stars, ect. would be at or close to the outer edges, not expand at a slower rate and be close to the center of the universe 13 billion light years later.

 

"The galaxy we live in is at the centre of the pattern, mapped by Dr Chris Fluke, Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology."

[Moontanman]

theUniverse.jpgtheUniverse.jpgAs you can see in the image below, the Universe expands out from the center, if it began to expand at the same time there would not be stars and galaxies near the center when the outer reaches of the Universe are 13 billion light years away from the center, it would be a shell. If it began to expand at the same time then all galaxies, stars, ect. would be at or close to the outer edges, not expand at a slower rate and be close to the center of the universe 13 billion light years later.

 

"The galaxy we live in is at the centre of the pattern, mapped by Dr Chris Fluke, Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology."

 

 

You should really give us a link to that info, I would suggest you have misinterpreted the illustration... Think about this, where is the center of the surface of a sphere?

Edited October 16, 2015 by Moontanman

[michel123456]

I have a question for those who believe that the Universe began with the Big Bang, estimates of the size of the Universe is approximately 13 billion light years from the center of the known Universe to the outer most edges, where they can detect Galaxies, they also use this to determine the age of the Universe, which is approximately 13 billion years, my question is if all matter in the Universe was created by a single explosion, then why is there Galaxies and stars spread from the center of the Universe to the outer limits of the Universe? If an explosion occurred then wouldn't all the debris spread outward, creating a circular band, and in 13 billion years the band would be at what they have determined to be the outer edges of the known universe.

I have to admit some time ago I also had this conception that the BBT is about an event that happened a long time ago and very far away from here.

However, the BBT states that the BB happened everywhere. That means the BB happened here, also. A long time ago.

Edited October 16, 2015 by michel123456

[Phi for All]

theUniverse.jpgtheUniverse.jpgAs you can see in the image below, the Universe expands out from the center, if it began to expand at the same time there would not be stars and galaxies near the center when the outer reaches of the Universe are 13 billion light years away from the center, it would be a shell. If it began to expand at the same time then all galaxies, stars, ect. would be at or close to the outer edges, not expand at a slower rate and be close to the center of the universe 13 billion light years later.

 

"The galaxy we live in is at the centre of the pattern, mapped by Dr Chris Fluke, Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology."

 

Moontanman is right, you've misinterpreted what the article said. When it talks about our galaxy being in "the centre of the pattern", it means this particular survey, not the center of the universe. We mapped over 100,000 galaxies around us, so naturally we're in the center of that model.

 

The universe itself has no center.

[John316]

Moontanman here is a link: www.atlasoftheuniverse.com

not the original link

largeScale_z3.gif The Milky way Galaxy according to the model is close to the origin of the Big Bang, according to the theory all the matter in the Universe was compressed into a sphere the size of a marble, and if you accept the Big Bang theory, then you need to look at the forensics of it, since the universe is over 13 billion years old, and I have heard estimates of the diameter being 150 billion light years, these two facts would require a great force to push galaxies to the speed of light, so if this theory is correct then a Big Bang might be an understatement, the image that I posted earlier shows to opposing mushrooming clouds, which indicates an explosion in two directions, as you would have with a photographic (2-D) image of an explosion, although in this model it seems to be exploding diametrically, from two points. when I said that we are situated close to the center of the Universe I was speaking of our position in relation to the point of the origin of the Big Bang, close to where the two mushroom spheres are joined, not sure which hemisphere. I have looked at several models, they seem to indicate an expansion, but the field is full of galaxies from the origin of the Big Bang to the outer most reaches, so how is it that some Galaxies have traveled short distances and others have traveled great distances? some near the origin of the big bang and other Galaxies 13 billion light years away? why wouldn't all the galaxies and matter be located at the same distance? a sphere, the universe is still expanding, so what would cause it to expand at different rates? and why is the center not empty?

Edited October 17, 2015 by John316

[Phi for All]

The Milky way Galaxy according to the model is close to the origin of the Big Bang,

 

I don't know where you got this, but it isn't true. There is no origin point for the BB.

 

according to the theory all the matter in the Universe was compressed into a sphere the size of a marble, and if you accept the Big Bang theory, then you need to look at the forensics of it,

Actually, our forensics backtracked the Big Bang expansion back to a fraction of a second after it happened, and the universe at that time was no bigger than an atom. All the matter, outrageously hot and dense.

 

I think your problem is you keep thinking space expanded into something. TheBB was an expansion OF space, not an expansion INTO space.

[John316]

Actually, our forensics backtracked the Big Bang expansion back to a fraction of a second after it happened, and the universe at that time was no bigger than an atom. All the matter, outrageously hot and dense.

 

 

Is the Universe infinite? is it open?, is it a Doughnut shape?, well at least there is one common accepted theory, the universe is expanding, and evidence of that is the physical material, Galaxies, ect. moving outward, you stated that the universe was no bigger than a atom, and that it began to expand, and if it can be traced back, then there is a point of origin, I am speaking of the known physical part of the Universe.

[Phi for All]

 

and if it can be traced back, then there is a point of origin,

 

False premise. Remember that the universe is all there is the entire time space is expanding.

 

I hesitate to introduce the balloon analogy, but what the heck. Imagine the surface of a balloon (just the surface, not the empty inside space!). No mouthpiece, seamless latex, very tiny. As it expands (not explodes), the surface gets bigger, the way space did after the BB. If you draw some dots on the surface and then blow it up, the balloon represents space and the dots represent matter like planets and stars. Space is expanding in between the matter, everywhere at once. No center on the surface of a balloon, right?

[John316]

If you draw some dots on the surface and then blow it up, the balloon represents space and the dots represent matter like planets and stars. Space is expanding in between the matter, everywhere at once. No center on the surface of a balloon, right?

 

Using your analogy, is the balloon then empty of all stars and matter?, because from the models I seen, the balloon would be filled with stars and galaxies?

[Phi for All]

 

Using your analogy, is the balloon then empty of all stars and matter?, because from the models I seen, the balloon would be filled with stars and galaxies?

 

Remember that the balloon analogy is a 2D representation of what's happening in 3D. We're only using the surface of the balloon for expansion, not the air inside. Draw the stars and matter on the surface, then blow up the balloon. The drawings of the stars and matter get farther apart from each other during expansion because the space in between them is expanding.

[John316]

We're only using the surface of the balloon for expansion, not the air inside.

You are placing dots on the surface of the ballon, other than hot air, are there any dots, (stars inside the ballon?), or are you saying only the surface of the ballon will have the overwhelming number of stars? Is what you are saying the Universe is like a canopy, only stars at the outer diameter? That is the question I am searching for an answer to. I under stand the analogy of expansion.

[ACG52]

You are carrying the analogy too far. In the balloon analogy the surface of the balloon is all that exists. There is no interior. Remember that it's an analogy, there is not a correspondence between the balloon and the universe.

[Phi for All]

How about this? Imagine a line. That's one dimension, length. Now take every single point on that line, and move away from the line at 90 degrees, a right angle. Now you have a square, right? Two dimensions, length and width. Now take your square, and let's make it out of latex like the balloon, so we can later expand it. For now though, let's add the third dimension, height. Take every single point on your square, and move away at 90 degrees. Now you have a cube, in three dimensions. Every bit of that cube can expand like the surface of a latex balloon.

 

Now let's expand the cube. If all the matter in the universe starts out fully condensed inside this cube, as we expand, we'll be creating space. The matter will become less dense and less hot as we expand, until it reaches a point where it's no longer condensed under pressure. Eventually, if we keep expanding, there will be space between the matter, space that will continue to expand while the matter cools and breaks up into smaller bits. The cube (the universe) continues to expand because the space between the matter is expanding.

 

Again, this is analogy. It will break down if applied outside of the special circumstances for which it was invoked.

[John316]

Do you believe that the Universe before the BB had any mass, energy, electromagnetic properties? Was e=mc²

^{valid? or do you believe that nothing existed prior to the BB, and/or the BB was the birth of the Universe?}

^{You have used the analogy of a ballon expanding, do you believe the Universe has cohesive properties? do to the attraction of masses, as we see in orbiting planets, black holes, dark matter, and God only knows what else, have an adhesive effect, a fabric?}

^{If the BB occurred is there any evidence that electrons, protons and neutrons existed as in there present form? that is incredible to think that all the mass of the Universe was compressed into the size of an atom.}

 

I am a creationist, but I believe Genesis possibly only accounts for earth and the immediate surrounding heavens.

[neutrinosalad]

 

Remember that the balloon analogy is a 2D representation of what's happening in 3D. We're only using the surface of the balloon for expansion, not the air inside. Draw the stars and matter on the surface, then blow up the balloon. The drawings of the stars and matter get farther apart from each other during expansion because the space in between them is expanding.

 

If the universe can be equated to the surface of a balloon, would that mean that space can be equated to the air inside of the balloon relative to the universe?

[MigL]

As has already been explained several times ( what, didn't you read all the posts, Capayan ? ), the surface of the balloon is the only relevant analogy.

It is a reduced dimensional analogy where, for ease of visualization, our normal three dimensions ( length, width and height ) are reduced to two dimensions ( length and width ) on the SURFACE of the balloon.

The air inside has as much meaning in this analogy as the air outside the balloon.

NONE !

The universe, i.e. all that there is, is represented by the surface of the balloon, and surface only.

 

The properties of the universe prior ( whatever that means ) to the big bang are irrelevant as we can never know them.

Space-time was created at the big bang event, John316.

 

I find it interesting that you think it incredible that all the mass/energy of the universe could emerge from a universe which was once so many orders of magnitude smaller than its present size as to be equitable to an atom.

Yet you, being a creationist, have no problem believing that all the mass/energy of the universe could spring forth from the whim of a Creator

[neutrinosalad]

As has already been explained several times ( what, didn't you read all the posts, Capayan ? ), the surface of the balloon is the only relevant analogy.

It is a reduced dimensional analogy where, for ease of visualization, our normal three dimensions ( length, width and height ) are reduced to two dimensions ( length and width ) on the SURFACE of the balloon.

The air inside has as much meaning in this analogy as the air outside the balloon.

NONE !

The universe, i.e. all that there is, is represented by the surface of the balloon, and surface only.

 

I am starting to understand this conceptually.

 

Do you have any links to articles that describe this in three dimensional terms? I will try to find some articles on my own too.

 

I think your problem is you keep thinking space expanded into something. TheBB was an expansion OF space, not an expansion INTO space.

 

Have scientists figured out why the BB was an expansion of space rather than an expansion into space?

[Phi for All]

Have scientists figured out why the BB was an expansion of space rather than an expansion into space?

 

When we use various techniques to backtrack the BB expansion, we can go back to just a fraction of a second after it began. Before that, the universe was so small, so hot, so dense, our current maths just resolve to infinity. We don't understand what happens to physics at such incredible energies. The four forces seem to be unified at t=0, but at 10^-43 seconds after expansion starts, the forces separate. This is where our math starts giving us meaningful numbers.

 

It's an expansion OF space because that's all there was, there was nothing else to expand into. It's hard to visualize, since we want anything that expands to do so INTO another area. When the thing that's expanding is... well, EVERYTHING THERE IS, our perceptions still visualize that as displacing one thing for another.

 

It helps me to think of the universe as an ocean with no boundaries, and more water (space) is constantly being added, making the matter in the ocean grow farther apart from each other. I don't think about edges or boundaries at all, and that helps.

 

For what it's worth, I have no problem with someone attributing all this to their god(s). I actually think it's far more awesome that the universe developed like this rather than just being willed into existence as-is a few thousand years ago. Power is one thing, but that kind of patience is inspiring.

[neutrinosalad]

 

When we use various techniques to backtrack the BB expansion, we can go back to just a fraction of a second after it began. Before that, the universe was so small, so hot, so dense, our current maths just resolve to infinity. We don't understand what happens to physics at such incredible energies. The four forces seem to be unified at t=0, but at 10^-43 seconds after expansion starts, the forces separate. This is where our math starts giving us meaningful numbers.

 

It's an expansion OF space because that's all there was, there was nothing else to expand into. It's hard to visualize, since we want anything that expands to do so INTO another area. When the thing that's expanding is... well, EVERYTHING THERE IS, our perceptions still visualize that as displacing one thing for another.

 

It helps me to think of the universe as an ocean with no boundaries, and more water (space) is constantly being added, making the matter in the ocean grow farther apart from each other. I don't think about edges or boundaries at all, and that helps.

 

This makes sense to me.

 

Rather than the universe being like the earth expanding until it is particles of dust and metals. The universe is like the ocean, expanding until it is a thin film of water.

[michel123456]

 

This makes sense to me.

 

Rather than the universe being like the earth expanding until it is particles of dust and metals. The universe is like the ocean, expanding until it is a thin film of water.

The "expanding until it is a thin film of water" is not compatible with Phi analogy.

[Phi for All]

The "expanding until it is a thin film of water" is not compatible with Phi analogy.

 

Analogies are like condoms. If you're going to stretch them for use with elephants, something is likely to break.

[swansont]

 

Analogies are like condoms. If you're going to stretch them for use with elephants, something is likely to break.

 

 

That's silly. Analogies are NOT an effective method of protection against STDs or pregnancy (in elephants or not).

[Endy0816]

 

Analogies are like condoms. If you're going to stretch them for use with elephants, something is likely to break.

 

Sadly I felt the need to check...

 

While human sized condoms are not recommend for elephant intercourse, but they could probably at least stretch enough to fit. Not going to be especially comfortable, however, and one may wish to avoid being near uncomfortable horny bull elephants.