Cremdelacrem's path to knowledge

[cremdelacrem]

Can someone please help me with a query I have.

 

If the energy released at the time of the Big Bang has not been slowed down by interacting with anything and hence is travelling at the speed of light, how is it possible to observe the beginning of creation since that energy would have already travelled beyond us, even if we observed a point at the other side of the Big Bang?

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The big bang wasn't at a small point in space. We can't look and say "it happened over there". Instead, the entire universe was small at the time of the big bang, and the expansion occurred everywhere. So it didn't happen "over there" -- the Bang happened everywhere at once, making space itself expand.

 

It's a tough concept to get your mind around. Imagine a balloon with dots on the surface. When the Big Bang happened, it wasn't like all the dots were in one place and they all spread out. It was like the balloon itself started blowing up, stretching the dots farther apart without moving them.

[cremdelacrem]

Thank you for your effort, however I am unable to accept your explanation in its current form, if I may expand slightly...

 

If the balloon analogy is to be compatible with phenomenon such as the horizon problem, then as you say it is incorrect to say the Big Bang happened over there, and if it happened everywhere at once, then I would prefer to say each pocket of energy shrank into its own pocket of space, hence on a large scale leading to the perception of expansion, due to the fact that the shrinking led to the other pockets moving further apart.

 

This way I do not become perplexed with the fact that if I looked away from the surface of the balloon, and not along it, there would be an inconsistency in the distribution of energy. I would also have a possible solution to the dark energy dilemma, in that those pockets of energy/space (that have now evolved into galaxies) are actually pushing each other apart, as it is only possible to shrink away from the unified state that represents the Big Bang.

 

 

Just to follow up...

 

Gravity only takes effect within each pocket and hence the perceived expansion that I have termed shrinking is due to the fact that there is no gravitational link as such with the other groups of galaxies.

 

 

By the way...

 

Whether I am right or wrong time will tell...

 

But to address those who would steal ideas to further their own cause, do you not think the train of thought that leads to the solving of the problems you have stolen from, will not trump you down the line?

 

Like taking credit for the answer to a sum that you have no knowledge of how to solve, and then been asked to solve the next, slightly harder sum, of which you haven't got the foggiest idea how to approach.

 

Edited December 7, 2008 by cremdelacrem
multiple post merged

[iNow]

You can think about it any way that you want to. The balloon thing is only an anology to help you picture the concept in your mind, not an actual representation of reality.

 

Also, gravity carries throughout the universe, so your pocket idea ("there is no gravitiation link with other groups of galaxies) doesn't seem to stand up to the empirical test. While the strength of that gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance it still carries throughout the universe.

 

Finally, WTF are you talking about with all of that stealing ideas stuff? It doesn't make any sense in the context of your two posts here.

[cremdelacrem]

Don’t worry about the idea statement, as it was meant in a general context.

 

Also, gravity carries throughout the universe, so your pocket idea ("there is no gravitation link with other groups of galaxies) doesn't seem to stand up to the empirical test. While the strength of that gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance it still carries throughout the universe.

 

To be honest I am more worried about how I would get around the fact that all galactic groups would presumably be pushed away at the same rate, which I may be able to solve by stating that, in relative terms, a group next door is only pushing away from the galaxies immediately in its vicinity, whereas galaxies further away are pushing off many galactic groups in between and hence they would recede away at a faster rate.

 

Now to address your query, indeed my pocket explanation was hastily and not thoroughly expressed, seen as though I had only just come up with the concept. However with my own perception of gravity, which I have yet to share with you, there is no flaw.

 

 

[Klaynos]

Could you express your ideas mathematically, they are a bit wishywashy atm, and don't make falsifiable predictions.

 

Your comment about "looked away from the surface of the balloon, and not along it" the surface of the balloon in this analogy is our 4D space-time, we cannot look away from the surface, it is simply not possible. This is ignoring that some current ideas do say that you can look at higher dimensions using high enough energies in particle accelerators but you can't do this just by observational cosmology..

[cremdelacrem]

Could you express your ideas mathematically, they are a bit wishywashy atm, and don't make falsifiable predictions.

 

A bit like string theory then huh! When I am ready to offer a full and detailed explanation I am afraid it will probably not be here, but I would like to state that I think using the language of mathematics alone severely limits your capacity in solving the matters you seek to solve. I have read (in Lee Smolin’s - The Trouble With Physics) that there wasn’t a single equation in the notebooks of Niels Bohr for example.

 

 

Your comment about "looked away from the surface of the balloon, and not along it" the surface of the balloon in this analogy is our 4D space-time, we cannot look away from the surface, it is simply not possible. This is ignoring that some current ideas do say that you can look at higher dimensions using high enough energies in particle accelerators but you can't do this just by observational cosmology..

I know full well you cannot ’look away from the surface’ it was not me who offered an analogy that didn’t reflect reality, as iNow stated, hence I merely proceeded to offer an explanation that better reflected reality.

 

I am a believer in the statement that - The secrets of the universe can be found in the most insignificant things - and so the way I attain knowledge is very different from the way you do, for I believe that if one were to truly understood a wild flower, which is in fact growing in its natural habitat, and hence is only called wild because it has been uncorrupted by human beings, then one would be able to understand the laws the entire universe obeys.

 

 

[Martin]

Could you express your ideas mathematically...?

 

. I have read (in Lee Smolin’s - The Trouble With Physics) that there wasn’t a single equation in the notebooks of Niels Bohr for example.

 

This is untrue. You can't have read that in Smolin's book, because it doesn't say that in Smolin's book. Bohr's notebooks may well have contained many equations, I don't know but would expect at least some, since his model of the hydrogen atom consists of equations. Smolin says (on page 309) that he did not include calculations in his notebooks, which is different.

 

To someone who thinks visually, an equation and a picture can be roughly equivalent. One would actually have to look at his notebooks, and not interpret second or third had some other people's verbal generalizations about them.

 

I know full well you cannot ’look away from the surface’ it was not me who offered an analogy that didn’t reflect reality, as iNow stated,..

 

You brought up the notion of looking off the balloon surface, and seeing that the density was different (e.g. air instead of rubber.) In terms of the analogy that would be analogous to looking in a direction out of 3D space. If you regard that as an impossibility, why mention it?

 

I am a believer in the statement that - The secrets of the universe can be found in the most insignificant things - and so the way I attain knowledge is very different from the way you do, for I believe that if one were to truly understood a wild flower, which is in fact growing in its natural habitat, and hence is only called wild because it has been uncorrupted by human beings, then one would be able to understand the laws the entire universe obeys.

 

Then what you have to say belongs in a poetry and mysticism forum. I will move it forthwith. The closest we have to appropriate accomodation for you is our Speculations and Pseudoscience space. I hope this will prove suitable.

 

It sounds like you know one of my favorite William Blake poems. I quote from memory, so punctuation will be wrong but here's the basic.

 

To see a world in a grain of sand

and a heaven in a wild flower.

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand

and eternity in an hour.

 

Can someone please help me with a query I have.

 

If the energy released at the time of the Big Bang has not been slowed down by interacting with anything and hence is travelling at the speed of light, how is it possible to observe the beginning of creation since that energy would have already travelled beyond us, even if we observed a point at the other side of the Big Bang?

 

 

This is not a question about WMAP. So the original topic title was something of a misleading teaser.

 

Can someone please help me with a query I have.

Nor are you asking for help as far as I can see. You seem more to be pushing your own ideas and approach to understanding. So the first sentence strikes me as a kind of bait and switch come-on.

 

If the energy released at the time of the Big Bang has not been slowed down by interacting with anything and hence is travelling at the speed of light, how is it possible to observe

 

Logically this is equivalent to saying:

If elephants lay eggs then how come I never saw one?

 

I would suggest trying the self-discipline of asking questions which do not begin with the word IF.

 

A person who comes here truly wanting to learn something will discover how to ask real questions rather than rhetorical ones.

 

You are forcing your own misinterpretation on the usual cosmo model by that IF. You and I and the earth and stars are all made of the energy released at the time you mention, and we are not traveling at the speed of light.

The earliest radiation that survives from around that time was released towards us as much as away from us. So in as much as there is stuff traveling the speed of light there is as much coming in as going away.

 

You seem to think it should have all gone away by now.

 

how is it possible to observe the beginning of creation...?

 

Rhetorical question. Misrepresents conventional cosmo, which does not claim that time began at the putative Bang. That is one speculative idea, but there is no scientific evidence to support it. For now the supposed Bang is merely a conventional time marker. A number of new models go back to an earlier time, and replace the supposed bang by a Bounce. The old model does not, because it breaks down at t=0. I'd say it would be surprising if there were nothing happening before, and we may be able to find out.

 

A good thing to read on this topic might be the section of Einstein-Online called A Tale of Two Big Bangs. There are two meanings of the term BB in use by astronomers which occasionally causes confusion. I have link to Einstein-Online Cosmology website in my sig.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Martin
multiple post merged

[cremdelacrem]

Martin,

 

I feel your response is really quite childish, for at no point in this thread have I claimed to offer something that is logically absolute, I even stated that I hastily and far from thoroughly shared the particular idea in question. Indeed, if I were to heed your criticism I would never state anything ever again without knowing it were completely sound, however that was not my purpose herein.

 

Hence it would be better for you to apply your far reaching knowledge of unsound logic to that which actually claims to be sound, because we all know there are many questions in science still to be answered, so what are you wasting your time with such a comprehensive critique when surely your talents are capable of solving those dilemmas.

 

 

With regards to your poetry and mysticism jibe, for sure Isaac Newton discovered the laws of gravity, but he was unable to explain why those laws worked, he just knew they did. Now considering gravity has been the stumbling block to the unification of the four forces, do you not think it would useful to understand why those laws worked?

 

Oopps sorry I forgot, we are only dealing with data not comprehension!

 

 

 

(P.S. I did not Title my first post - Cremdelacrem's path to knowledge - I assume one of the moderators added that to try and take the mickey, so to other users beware, these people only wish to glorify themselves and if you challenge their self glorification, well...)

 

 

 

Talk about turning sour, gone is my motivation to discuss anything with this world.

[YT2095]

gone is my motivation to discuss anything with this world.

 

seek Guidance from Yoda, you should

 

 

 

 

sorry, I couldn`t resist, but who the hell talks like that in the Real world anyway?

Martins Poetry observation seems perfectly justified me thinketh.