What keeps matter in the unviverse "contained"

[Money]

wen the big bang occurred as i understand it

the universe was at one extremely small point i think they called

it the Primordial Atom but then it blew

it was small (compared to now) and grew well

if the universe was a bubble expanding with all matter inside it

what kept all the matter from going outside this "bubble"

of a universe ??? its kind of hard for me to explain the question

but i think i asked good enough to get good answers

[Martin]

in the picture where the universe starts out in a small dense state, it is not merely that all MATTER is contained in that state but all SPACE as well.

the expansion that people talk about is an expansion involving both space and matter, not an expansion of matter outwards into empty preexisting space

 

so you ask what keeps matter "contained" why doesnt it drift outside----in usual cosmology there is NO OUTSIDE for it to drift out into.

[igosaur]

The universe, as I understand it, is a closed system.

 

The reason that matter cannot drift outside is that there is no outside for it to drift into, i.e. matter can only exist in the space that was created along with it.

 

The best analogy I can come up with is that of a dirty soap bubble. The bubbles surface itself is space and all the dirt and particles trapped in the soap/space are matter.

 

The bubble can expand and expand but the matter/dirt is always on the surface and can never escape.

 

Now imagine this for the universe but add an extra dimension.

 

I am now ready to be shot down in flames

[Martin]

that impresses me as a very clear brief description

the igosaur dirty soap bubble---then going up one dimension---seems like a really good way to explain it

 

probably you will not be shot down in flames this time, igosaur.

[igosaur]

The Igosaur Dirty Soap Bubble

 

Fame at last!!!

 

that impresses me as a very clear brief description

the igosaur dirty soap bubble---then going up one dimension---seems like a really good way to explain it

 

probably you will not be shot down in flames this time, igosaur.

[Money]

thnx alot i understand wat u guys are saying

i just cant cope with there being "nothingness"

because that small dense state that made matter and space

cant come from no where but its stil only wat ppl think

so yea i understand wat u guys are saying gracias senors : )

[igosaur]

As Carl Sagan said, "The Cosmos does not have to conform to our expectations of it"

 

i just cant cope with there being "nothingness"

because that small dense state that made matter and space

cant come from no where but its stil only wat ppl think

so yea i understand wat u guys are saying gracias senors : )

[ydoaPs]

because that small dense state that made matter and space

cant come from no where

 

Why does it have to come from somewhere? What about the Law of conservation of matter/energy? Matter/Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form. It always has been and always will be.

 

As a side note, could you please work on your grammar and punctuation? It would make your posts much easier to read and thus help others more accurately and more expediently answer your questions. Helping us read your posts helps you.

[pioneer]

I often wondered if we are blending two references when we discuss the expansion of the universe. For example, a blackhole is sort of a micro approximation of the beginning of the universe, in the sense, a lot of matter within a tiny spot, with extreme space-time contraction. From our reference, it only looks like a tiny place of extreme space-time contraction surrounded by vast space-time, which is very close to our own reference.

 

Inside the blackhole's reference, it sees distance contracted into its extreme distance contracted reference. Is it possible that sitting on the primordial atom gives us the blackhole's view, that is used to support the traditional expanding bubble analogy. But since the universe that we know is not infinite but finite, its origin was sort of a mega blackhole, surrounded by what would be an infinite zone of zero reference.

 

The double reference standard begins when we explain the history of the expansion. If the bubble is true, than the only reference was on the distance contracted reference of the bubble. Yet we hop back to our zero reference and measure the expansion as though space was already here. In other words, the first 100 year of analysis is based on our reference. Our reference should not yet exist when things are still so dense, such that 100 years would have taken an entirely different amount of time in the bubble universe reference. The bubble should have been the only reference for things to occur, yet we catalog events in a zero reference, which we then say did not yet exist during the expansion. One should not be able to have it both ways at the same time.

 

An analogy would be watching, the unlikely event, of a blackhole expanding. In our zero reference, it might appear to take say a day. But what the blackhole will see is the entire process occurring differently since it begins with extreme time dilation with its reference never in one spot. We need to pick one or the other and remain true to only one reference.

 

If we use zero reference to determine how fast things had to occur, then that assumes zero reference was around at the beginning. If zero reference was not around, then the time scale for all the steps of the expansion is much different that what we currently assume since the only reference was that of the bubble at a given point in the expansion. It is sort of like wanting to have your cake and eating it at the same time.

[Martin]

...

i just cant cope ...

because that small dense state ...

cant come from no where ...

 

 

you are shifting your ground, Money.

 

at first your problem was imagining a small dense state (with no boundary, nothing outside it) that expands, and is our universe today

 

I hope now you are all right with that.

 

Now you are saying you are puzzled about what came BEFORE the small dense state.

 

That is the focus of some interesting current research in QG.

 

I don't think Yourda would say "nothing" came before it. I certainly would not, that would sound silly and there is no scientific reason to say that. In my experience it is mainly church-affiliated non-science websites which falsely claim that scientists say that "nothing" came before the bigbang. Whether intentional or not, this misrepresentation has caused considerable confusion.

 

Some scientists may have made poorly qualified statements like that in the past but there is a strong current direction in research where you allow that there quite possibly was something and you try to find out what it was.

 

This year a major step along the way was the publication in the journal called NATURE PHYSICS of an article by Martin Bojowald called WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BIG BANG? Bojowald is a leader in the QG field and the article is short, comparatively easy to read, and free for download as a PDF.

 

So why don't you have a look? research in this area is fast-moving, so only the latest articles can give an accurate idea. this was in the August 2007 issue of NP.

You can go directly to the article in HTML here:

http://npg.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n8/full/nphys654.html

 

Or you can go here

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28372

for some more discussion of the article and also a link to NP August issue table of contents

http://npg.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n8/index.html

 

NP is a class act among professional peer-review physics journals. I really respect their editorial smarts and I like the fact that it seems to be free online after an initial lead-time during which only the pay subscribers get to look.

they have the highest or one of the highest citation rates per article of any professional physics journal, which means winners in their business. so you might like to check the whole journal out and see what's up with it

instead of just looking at the Bojowald article

[Money]

I hope now you are all right with that.

 

im cool wit it

an thanx for the links definitely gone read up on it Professor Martin

i'll let u know wen i finish the work assigned lol

[pioneer]

This came to this morning. It represents another way to look at GR and the contraction of space-time. If we were to place a large box around a large area of space, and have a blackhole form in the center, if the box is large enough it will remain the same size, yet the blackhole in the center will appear to add extra space to the volume. In other words, without the blackhole it would take X time to get from one side to the other. With the blackhole, if we transverse the same distance, while going through the blackhole, it will take far longer to get to the other side. We may not even reach the other side but appear to stay suspended near the blackhole.

 

From the point of view of our large box, the amount of space is about the same, if we avoid the blackhole. For example, we move along any surface of the large box, it will take about the time as before. What this means, is the blackhole has created an affect that increases the amount of space within the box, without making the outer walls of the box to expand outwards. They may actually come in slightly.

 

One way to explain this is with reference magnification. Picture this, we have a 1cm puddle of pond water under a microscope. Without using the microscope, we can transverse the little puddle quickly since it is small. If we look through the microscope and then focus, so we can see one little one-cell critter, if we follow this critter from one side to the other, it would create the impression that the tiny puddle of water has gotten very large. Someone watching the microscope follow the critter, will see the microscope appearing to be stopped or barely moving. It would appear to take forever for the microscope to scan that tiny 1cm of distance.

 

This is conceptually consistent with someone falling into a blackhole. Relative to our large box, which is analogous to the 1cm of water, as long as we bypass the magnification reference it remains the same size. But once we look into the micro world of the microscope (blackhole), we see a entirely different world where distances appear much larger. For us to move in that micro-world, it would appear like we are not moving to someone who is watching us from the point of view of no microscope.

 

This makes conceptual sense in terms of the packing of matter. For example, if we look at cube of sugar, it is solid. If we magnify this, then we realize there is a lot of void space between the molecules. If we zoom in more, we realize that there is a lot of extra space between nuclei. If we zoom in further there is extra space between nucleons in the nucleus. If we zoom in even further there is now even extra space between all the substructure that makes up nucleons, etc. Because we can see this extra space, we are now able to occupy it or make use of it. The blackhole by magnifying reference, allows the most efficient use of space-time. It can pack matter which normally has a lot of void into highly efficient packing.

 

SR can be understood as demagnification in the sense, that if we transverse the box, using a SR reference, the affect is opposite to the blackhole. Instead of just lingering at the blackhole, we get to the other side faster. SR creates a telescopic affect in space-time. It is sort of like looking through a telescope. If we scan the horizon, we can move great distances with very little effort. Someone looking at the telescope move will only see it move a few inches, but within the telescopes reference, we can move from galaxy to galaxy in short periods of time. The telescope affect is sort of what one sees in their distance contracted reference if they are moving near C. We get from point A to B and age very little.

 

If we return to the question of matter containment and the beginning of the universe, the beginning was "maximum magnification Zulu". At max-mag, there is negligable space-time void between all the mass/energy. If we wish to create void space so we can get more diversity, we simply reduce the level of GR space-time magnification so more space appears. The expansion is demagnification, while GR is magnification. We focus the SR telescope reference onto the GR microscope reference and vice versa. Containment may be due to SR and GR maintaining a constant value???