Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skip
Posts: 2553
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Skip » Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:14 am

UniversalAlien wrote:“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
-- Albert Einstein
I don't recall him going on to say: "Therefore, we must discard knowledge, disregard facts, and proceed on the basis of anybody's gut feeling or wishful thinking." I rather think he meant we should to add to knowledge by exploring all the avenues offered by imagination and comparing fanciful ideas to observable facts.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by UniversalAlien » Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:49 am

Skip wrote:
UniversalAlien wrote:“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
-- Albert Einstein
I don't recall him going on to say: "Therefore, we must discard knowledge, disregard facts, and proceed on the basis of anybody's gut feeling or wishful thinking." I rather think he meant we should to add to knowledge by exploring all the avenues offered by imagination and comparing fanciful ideas to observable facts.
Good opinion!

But Einstein also said:

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

"Once we accept our limits, we go beyond them."

"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts."

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."

"To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science."

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."


--Albert Einstein

I imagine a real future not yet possible, occurring in a world yet to be.

-UniversalAlien

THE FUTURE IS NOW!!!

See:
SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE
At my blog post here:
http://universalspacealienpeoplesassoci ... uture.html

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Greta » Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:33 am

The bit I never understood is that, if the universe was once minuscule and then inflated as per the usual balloon analogy, an inflating balloon does have an approximate physical centre relative to its location prior to its inflation.

How does inflation differ from the expanding balloon analogy? How can the universe not have a relative, approximate spatial centre like an expanding balloon?

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by UniversalAlien » Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:32 pm

Greta wrote:The bit I never understood is that, if the universe was once minuscule and then inflated as per the usual balloon analogy, an inflating balloon does have an approximate physical centre relative to its location prior to its inflation.

How does inflation differ from the expanding balloon analogy? How can the universe not have a relative, approximate spatial centre like an expanding balloon?
Hello Greta - Are you the same Greta from the other universe?

As I still think about the question it still occurs to me that you can not have an answer to my question or yours as long as you assume we are dealing with a single universe that appears like magic in a magical non-existent void - IMPOSSIBLE :!:

An existent state appearing from a non-existent state goes beyond even my alien imagination. So if you are going to accept this inflation consider that this universe is inflating into what? - What is the space that it is inflating into to? Nothingness? Do you, or anyone else for that matter, want to believe that your whole universe is framed by a state of nothingness?

On the other hand a multiverse makes a lot of sense - Possibly Universes within universes unfolding {or contracting] into a giant matrix of a creation that always was and never had a beginning and hopefully will have no end.

I just can't buy a Theist mantra "In the beginning there was nothing.......". Yes a Big Bang might mark the beginning of the calculable universe we are communicating in now - but only a very naive philosopher would assume it is the only universe in existence.

But back to your question as to the center of this universe and the expanding baloon:
The following quote - {Copyright 1997 by Philip Gibbs}
Where is the centre of the universe?

There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.

In 1929 Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding. This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point.............................................

The Famous Balloon Analogy

A good way to help visualise the expanding universe is to compare space with the surface of an expanding balloon. This analogy was used by Arthur Eddington as early as 1933 in his book The Expanding Universe. It was also used by Fred Hoyle in the 1960 edition of his popular book The Nature of the Universe. Hoyle wrote "My non-mathematical friends often tell me that they find it difficult to picture this expansion. Short of using a lot of mathematics I cannot do better than use the analogy of a balloon with a large number of dots marked on its surface. If the balloon is blown up the distances between the dots increase in the same way as the distances between the galaxies."

The balloon analogy is very good but needs to be understood properly—otherwise it can cause more confusion. As Hoyle said, "There are several important respects in which it is definitely misleading." It is important to appreciate that three-dimensional space is to be compared with the two-dimensional surface of the balloon. The surface is homogeneous with no point that should be picked out as the centre. The centre of the balloon itself is not on the surface, and should not be thought of as the centre of the universe. If it helps, you can think of the radial direction in the balloon as time. This was what Hoyle suggested, but it can also be confusing. It is better to regard points off the surface as not being part of the universe at all. As Gauss discovered at the beginning of the 19th century, properties of space such as curvature can be described in terms of intrinsic quantities that can be measured without needing to think about what it is curving in. So space can be curved without there being any other dimensions "outside". Gauss even tried to determine the curvature of space by measuring the angles of a large triangle between three hill tops.

When thinking about the balloon analogy you must remember that. . .

The 2-dimensional surface of the balloon is analogous to the 3 dimensions of space.
The 3-dimensional space in which the balloon is embedded is not analogous to any higher dimensional physical space.
The centre of the balloon does not correspond to anything physical.
The universe may be finite in size and growing like the surface of an expanding balloon, but it could also be infinite.
Galaxies move apart like points on the expanding balloon, but the galaxies themselves do not expand because they are gravitationally bound.

... but if the Big Bang was an explosion...................
See whole article here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... entre.html

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Greta » Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:46 pm

Yes UA, not many Gretas (or women, for that matter) haunting philosophy sites.

Let's go one at a time. My first issue:
The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.
That logic in itself doesn't rule out an approximate centre. It first expanded from something very small and thereafter it has been inflating outward from every point, not just from the tiny birthing universe.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by UniversalAlien » Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:21 pm

Greta wrote:Yes UA, not many Gretas (or women, for that matter) haunting philosophy sites.

Let's go one at a time. My first issue:
The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.
That logic in itself doesn't rule out an approximate centre. It first expanded from something very small and thereafter it has been inflating outward from every point, not just from the tiny birthing universe.
Exactly my point in asking the initial question "Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?" and 'they' say it is meaningless. Doesn't it sometime seem like some modern physicists are shilling for the theists? - Showing us a universe which is illogical - A universe
that has no point or place of origin, no center, and no direction, framed by a meaningless void.

Physics can become a trap, like theism, that limits our ability to see what existence and the universe really is - In my opinion an unfolding intelligence of which we are part - no beginning, no end - and in a way 'they' are yet to understand right at the center of it - The calculating perceptual mind - the true center of all.

Here is a interesting article being on someone being 'debunked[' by 'Popular Science' magazine:

THE CONSPIRACY THEORIST WHO DUPED THE WORLD'S BIGGEST PHYSICISTS
POPULAR SCIENCE SPOKE WITH RICK DELANO, WHOSE MOVIE THE PRINCIPLE SHOWS THE WORLD'S MOST FAMOUS COSMOLOGISTS PROMOTING THE IDEA THAT THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.


See article here:
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/h ... physicists

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by UniversalAlien » Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:33 pm

{WILL RETURN LATER TODAY}

uwot
Posts: 4812
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by uwot » Sun Jan 03, 2016 5:27 pm

The balloon analogy at it is usually explained, can be misleading. I've try tried to demonstrate the basic idea here: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/intro.html The point about there not being a centre from which it exploded is not that the universe didn't start in one place, rather it is that any point in the universe is at the centre of its own 'balloon'.
If you can accept that the universe has expanded from something very tiny, to something the size it is, (and the evidence is extremely compelling) then instead of just thinking of something exploding into tiny fragments, it can be helpful to imagine those fragments as balloons. Once the fragments are balloon size, then each 'fragment' of a secondary balloon, is a tertiary balloon, and each fragment of that is a balloon, of which each fragment is a balloon, balloon, balloon, balloon. Keep doing that for the next 300 000 years and the madness will have settled enough for photons to emerge, those photons now make up the cosmic background radiation.
I don't know if that helps, but every region of space once was a fragment of the original big bang, hence every location, in a sense is at the centre of its own balloon. When we look out with our most powerful telescopes, all we can see, in effect, is the surface of the balloon we happen to be in the middle of, and that would be true wherever we were in the universe, but deciding which 'balloon' is the true centre is utterly impossible.

Skip
Posts: 2553
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Skip » Sun Jan 03, 2016 5:32 pm

Who knew Einstein spoke exclusively in aphorisms? That must have made it as difficult to construct equations as it might have been in the language of the Tamarians. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Darmok_(episode)

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by UniversalAlien » Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:21 am

OK, now I'm going to answer in very simple terms so all can understand two posts currently running here:
The one I started "Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?" and "Earth at the center of the Universe?" started by skakos 4/2014.

The answer is so simple most of you philosophical geniuses will dispute it. The answer is that the answer dose not exist
because the universe is infinite - So the Big Bang could occur somewhere but the position in an infinite universe is irrelevant
- Same could be said about the center of the universe - there can be no center in an infinite universe

And for those of you who want to dispute me, tell me what are the boundaries of the universe? You don't even have to believe
in the multiverse because the same state of infinity would apply.

{PS: I will post this on skakos post as well - fell free to respond to either or both} - UA

User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by socratus » Mon Jan 04, 2016 2:18 pm

Scientists say that before the “big bang” was nothing: neither
space nor time. In my opinion when we say “space”, “time”
we must define more precisely. We must define more precisely
that we are talk about “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”.
Is my opinion correct?
====…
First - SRT.
a) Take SRT the theory without gravity.
Therefor this theory doesn’t have “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”.
This theory has “spacetime”- other names:
Minkowski spacetime, negative 2D, Pseudo Euclidian space.
In my opinion all these words hide one true word: vacuum.
b)
One SRT postulate says that the speed of light is constant in vacuum
because the laws of electricity and magnetism predict that light travels
at c = 2.998×108 m/s in a vacuum. But scientists did not specify the
frame of reference in which light had this speed. Therefore was invented
Minkowski spacetime, negative 2D, Pseudo Euclidian space – all
these words are different names of vacuum.
Vacuum is reference frame for speed of quantum of light and SRT.
(we still don’t know what vacuum is)

Second – GRT.
Take GRT the theory about gravity.
The gravity masses somehow changed the surrounded “spacetime”
and create “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”.
There aren’t “space” and “time” without gravity.

Third – The prove.
You can detect my opinion in our Earth referent frame.
How? Try to live without “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”.
#
Astronauts can live in satellite without “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”
only because they have artificial air. Without artificial air this satellite
is flying coffin. We can live on natural / artificial cosmic satellite /planet
Earth only because Earth has own gravity-space- air and gravity-time.
==..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=====…
Attachments
absolute zero.jpg
absolute zero.jpg (8.32 KiB) Viewed 1482 times

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by UniversalAlien » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:23 pm

Assuming you accept the Big Bang as an occurrence, it must have occurred somewhere - And of course you say
you can not say where because there was no place yet in existence before the occurrence - You would be wrong. As I explained earlier there is no possibility of a state of non existence as existence could not occur from a non-existent state. So if the Big Bang did occur somewhere how would you describe where? Simple, the Multiverse - In the multiverse the Big Bang
occurred somewhere. From the point of view of conservative thinking in modern physics the Big Bang occurred, and is
occurring here in out local universe. As to where it is occurring in the larger Multiverse surrounding it remains to be seen
- But one day when and if we are able to learn more about the multiverse it may be possible to find a location within {or without} of it where it happened.

"Modern thinking is that time did not start with the big bang, and that there was a multiverse even before the big bang. In the inflation theory, and in string theory, there were universes before our big bang, and that big bangs are happening all the time. Universes are formed when bubbles collide or fission into smaller bubles."
--Michio Kaku
Michio Kaku is an American futurist, theoretical physicist and popularizer of science. Kaku is a Professor of Theoretical Physics at the City College of New York.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:37 pm

The multiverse is simply a "science of the gaps" because any universe which might exist external to our own lies beyond our scrutiny by definition. It wasn't part of "our" big bang and is therefore not causally connected to it. An explanation which explains everything is an explanation which explains nothing so the multiverse is no improvement on the god hypothesis.

Dubious
Posts: 2417
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Dubious » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:13 pm

Nevertheless the possibility of there being a multiverse is an idea that cannot or should not be ignored. I imagine it even possible, if we ever get to a thoroughly convincing TOE, to include or exclude the the necessity for such a structure.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:29 pm

Dubious wrote:Nevertheless the possibility of there being a multiverse is an idea that cannot or should not be ignored. I imagine it even possible if we ever get to a thoroughly convincing TOE it may even include or exclude the the necessity for such a structure.
I disagree completely. The multiverse is a complete red herring because its existence can never be established, even in principle. If the big bang is accepted as a real occurrence, and there exists overwhelming evidence to suggest that it should be, then this universe cannot be causally connected to anything external to itself. Both the multiverse and the hidden spatial dimensions of string theory are hypotheses which have been bandied about for four decades and neither hypothesis has ever yielded a testable prediction. Theorists are almost unanimously of the view that this will NEVER be possible, even in principle, so these cannot be regarded as legitimate scientific hypotheses. The multiverse is like god. It is a hypothesis which lies beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry because nothing is knowable about it so it's just as big a cop-out as is god.

A true TOE must define a universe sufficient to its own existence.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests