YT2095 Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 having looked at this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29651 an Idea occurred to me, assuming the Impossible for a second, If we went into the "Void" at the very edge where our universe hasn`t expanded into yet. Would we be able to see the Big Bang as it happened (albeit from a great distance away) ? my Idea is that the Big Bang is still happening at this junction, although only as Images, a bit like rolling back to the beginning of a film, so that the Light and stuff that hasn`t reached into this void yet would be what happened at the very beginning of "time". it makes sense to me as a Logical extrapolation, but are there any other reasons that this would not be the case? (and remember I did acknowledge that we must assume the Impossible by getting to that junction area, so that can be overlooked I believe). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Overlooking the obvious objection about an observer not being able to exist in a region without spacetime, I think this safari trip might be plagued with problems. For example, anything produced in the bang remains within the universe, which means no visible energy reaches an outside observer. Also most of the interesting bits occur within the first second of the bang, so you would need one hell of a slow motion function on your camcorder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 17, 2007 Author Share Posted November 17, 2007 and a Huge aperture telescope to capture enough photons to make it visible I expect. it would be Very diluted I should imagine. it`s non the less interesting the know that there is an Actual Physical place in the Universe where you could see Mankind just starting out or watch the Big Bang. although this Dilution problem doesn`t bode well for some of these Time Travel ideas about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Wait, I'm confused now. Are you asking about leaving the bounded range of the universe and then "looking back" to see the big bang as if it were happening 'live', or going back in time and floating about in the void waiting for the bang to actually happen? (Although I suppose my observations hold true for either scenario, and the bit about visible energy not leaving the universe as you have done is a big downer.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 17, 2007 Author Share Posted November 17, 2007 leaving the bounded range of the universe and then "looking back" to see the big bang as if it were happening 'live', that one. a bit like watching a film. but again, I realise there`s no way we could ever Get to that point, and if we did it would be Very "Diluted", a bit like getting a pen and putting dots on a balloon, 1 cm appart, then blow the balloon up and you see the dots are Much further appart. in this idea, the pen dot`s would be the Photons that make up the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 I thought that there is no edge of the universe. AFAIK you can see everything there is to see about the Big Bang from anywhere in the universe (assuming a clear view) just by looking far enough away. That the Big Bang happened everywhere simultaneously, and that to be outside of it you would have to be outside and completely isolated from the universe (ie, you would have nothing to observe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 17, 2007 Author Share Posted November 17, 2007 interesting, I was under the impression that it was like one of those old French bombs, the sort that look like a black bowling ball with a fuse sticking out of it that explodes in slow motion in the middle of Nothingness. expanding further out and cooling as it does so. and all the hot bits that react and cool and glow etc... are what we call Galaxies and stuff. ok it`s a little Rough as an illustration and probably needs work, but the principal is what I`m getting at. there`s no Logical way something can be expanding in ALL directions at once without Some bits getting closer together, because that wouldn`t be expanding it would be getting Denser and that`s Contracting btw, if any of our Physics staff thinks this should go into Speculations, feel free to move it. as long as I get answers that are Valid and Proven for my Questions, I`m happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 there`s no Logical way something can be expanding in ALL directions at once without Some bits getting closer together, because that wouldn`t be expanding it would be getting Denser and that`s Contracting Well, if distance itself is changing (eg 1 old meter becomes 1.1 new meters). I don't know if that is the accepted explanation though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 there`s no Logical way something can be expanding in ALL directions at once without Some bits getting closer together, because that wouldn`t be expanding it would be getting Denser and that`s Contracting Which bits of the surface of a balloon get closer when it is blown up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 17, 2007 Author Share Posted November 17, 2007 Non, and that happens to be my Entire point. the balloon is expanding in One direction only, Outwards. so the claim that you can look at Any part in Any direction and see the big bang is Bogus! unless there`s a Mirror out there to reflect those photons back in to your eyes. it`s like trying to catch a ball you just threw by running in the other direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Non, and that happens to be my Entire point.the balloon is expanding in One direction only, Outwards.So, if you draw two dots on the balloon before blowing it up, they are the same distance apart inflated as they are deflated? Perhaps you should actually try it. Things you will need: 1) A balloon 2) a tape measure(or a roll of string and a ruler) 3) a marker Take the marker and make two marks on the balloon. Measure the distance between the marks and record it. Inflate the balloon. Measure the distance between the marks again, and record it. Are the two distances equal? If not, which distance is greater? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 17, 2007 Author Share Posted November 17, 2007 I have tried it, that`s how I know it works even the dots themselves expand! and if you don`t believe me YOU try it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 I have tried it, that`s how I know it works even the dots themselves expand! and if you don`t believe me YOU try it! Yes, the dots expand. They aren't made of one ink molecule! The distance between the individual drops of ink expand as well(not just the rubber between the dots). there`s no Logical way something can be expanding in ALL directions at once without Some bits getting closer together, because that wouldn`t be expanding it would be getting Denser and that`s Contracting You just said that you tried it, and your results indicate that I was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Get a flat piece of rubber and draw dots on it. Then stretch it away from the center. The sheet will be expanding in all directions of it's plane. I suppose you could do it in 3D but it would require a clear rubbery/gaslike material. Now imagine that the sheet is infinitely large and being stretched from all places at once. PS: in the balloon analogy, I think "outwards" is supposed to be the time dimension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 This thread is going in a very weird direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 This thread is going in a very weird direction. As do most of the threads I post in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 As Mr Skeptic said, you don't need to go into the 'void' where the big bang is expanding into (which would be a little hard anyway since it doesn't exist - the Big Bang happened everywhere at once). In principle, even sitting on the Earth, if you look far enough away you will look right back to the big bang, since anything 13.7 billion light years away must have emitted the light you are seeing now at the big bang. In principle this is not quite true since at the big bang and for a while afterwards the universe was so dense and hot that it was opaque to photons. So you can't 'see' earlier than that time. And this 'surface of last scattering' (which is fancy name for the boundary at which the universe became transparent to light) is exactly what the COBE and WMAP satellites were looking at when they examine the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowacct Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Yesterday I read in our newspaper that the images of WMAP might be wrong. The irregularities might be caused by dust in our own galaxy. If this is true, then the background radiation is much more uniform than WMAP suggests. This could have large consequences for the theories about the earliest span of time of the universe. @YT: big bang indeed occurred everywhere in our known universe. Probably, spacetime already was infinite at the time of big bang, but a very small area expanded to what is our known universe. Space itself expanded. The "border" we have in our universe is not a real physical border, we simply cannot look away more than appr. 13.7 billion lightyears, because at that distance the light from the beginning of the universe started. An observer, e.g. 10 billion lightyears distance from our position can see part of our universe, and also part, which is beyond our horizon, beyond which we cannot observe anything. Think of the two observers as two points, with circles around them, the circles having a diameter of 13.7 billion lightyears, each circle being the observable universe for that observer. The universe hence is much larger than what we can observe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZane Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 How do we know which way is outward ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spikerz66 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 How do we know which way is outward ? It would seem to me that "outward" would have to be measured from the center of the Big Bang. "Outward" in this instance is the particular direction going away from the "center" of the Big Bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revprez Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 If I understand the question correctly, it's the same as asking whether or not the measurements of the CMB should vary with observer position. My understanding is it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 It would seem to me that "outward" would have to be measured from the center of the Big Bang. "Outward" in this instance is the particular direction going away from the "center" of the Big Bang. There is no center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spikerz66 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 There is no center. I don't understand how there cannot be a "center." I think however they may perhaps be some misunderstanding about what I meant by center. In my previous reply I was referring to the "center" as in the "origin point." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I don't understand how there cannot be a "center." I think however they may perhaps be some misunderstanding about what I meant by center. In my previous reply I was referring to the "center" as in the "origin point." there is no origin point, it happened everywhere at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 3, 2007 Author Share Posted December 3, 2007 so there`s no place anywhere the universe hasn`t moved into yet then, there`s a Brick wall at the end of it? the universe isn`t Expanding? only if the Above were True, could there be no point of origin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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