Expansion of the universe
In taking to heart the expert's admonitions about thinking multi-dimensional in the thinking of expansion (i.e. "imagine a balloon, but remember that is merely a 2d example; in reality . . . ."), I try to think of what they are saying in 3d and beyond. I imagine that if space were really expanding from a singularity at the Big Bang, then space would not *only* be expanding away from a center, but it would have to be going through the center in the opposite direction of itself, simultaneously. I don't know if that is what you would call 4d or what, because my brain has a hard time getting beyond the balloon analogy. But if space is expanding in all directions, and if I am not at the center of it, then it would seem that it could not simply start with an absence of itself in a single spot and expand from there. It would have to expand against, or through itself in the opposite direction too. Otherwise, wouldn't we be able to look in one direction for the source? Can't we actually look in any direction and they are all looking back toward the big bang?
Comments (47)
The "looking through itself" is a struggle for me to understand, in itself. But what I was struggling with in my post was not so much our looking through, as it was about the experience of space itself at the "start" of the big bang.
So, forget for the moment the issue of speed and time. Just look at the absence of space at the singularity. Then there is space.
But whenever a scientist tries to explain this to me, they say "imagine the balloon." Okay, I get that. But then they say "Remember, though, the balloon analogy is simply a way for us to simplify it so you get the gist of things not moving away from each other, but, rather, space is inflating between them. In reality, it is not a balloon, but 3d."
So I say okay, now I must try to conceive of space expansion in all directions at once. After all, the balloon analogy is just a simplification. When I do that though, it seems to me that space could not grow out from a fixed point, but would also have to grow in and through itself and out the other side at the same time.
Sum and substance :It is a simultaneous explosion and implosion (with the implosion going through itself and out the other side to join the explosion). And then there is instantaneous space between everything with there having never been a center from which to bang outward. No space, then space, and growing?
:ok:
A misconception I had was to think that I am in or inside the universe when I'm actually a part of it. In order to be inside something I need an outside, however from my point of view the universe is all the space that exists. If there's an outside then we don't know it's nature nor can we ever go there physically.
Also when we look in any direction we see the CMB, the Cosmic Microwave Background, which is the earliest electromagnetic radiation of the universe.
I agree, and my thinking that way started with a discussion about whether we are the center of the universe. I tried to add the next dimension and came up with my question. It seems to me that if space exists between all that which is not space, then there can be no single not space, but a multitude of not spaces separated by spaces, and there was no single direction from a singularity outward.
I don't know about that, but I never had a problem with lots of questions. For instance, is there a reason why it had to be a bang? How about an extremely slow, insidious creep; a root that can only venture out when it gains enough strength to overcome the forces that don't want to let it go. Or the water wearing away the rock in the river. Gently, slowly, with patience. I guess a bang is sexier. It draws the attention. Like a shooting.
Yep.
That's what the cosmic microwave background radiation is - well, almost, to within a few hundred thousand years.
:up:
If two people stand back to back, and do nothing, but the distance between them increases... then the space they are in is expanding.
Space is not there? Where do astronauts go, then?
The reason here is the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background. A slow formation would have given the matter/energy in the universe time to interact and form large scale structures. Since we don't see evidence of those, the theory is that the expansion was very fast initially.
At first glance, this is correct. But the difference between an explosion and an expansion of space is the presence of inertial forces. With an explosion they are obviously present, with the space expansion they are not. The galaxies "swim" quasi in the expanding space and feel no inertial forces.
The other problem I have with it is the way physisists say "to ask what came before the big bang is a bad question", because time only exists once the ball is rolling. If nothing existed before this singularity, there would still be nothing now! It's a huge mess of a theory. Even Roger Penrose's idea on how it works is ridiculous and he's been trying to explain it for longer than I've been able to walk.
The CMB is the only good evidense for the Big Bang Theory. But I think it has a different cause. I don't know how or from where, but if its the only reason to believe something as invented and stupendous as the BB, I'd rather wait and see.
Finally, I think at least half the reason the BBT took off is because it fitted in so nicely with the bible. God spoke and shazam, a universe! Sounds like one and the same to me. Fiction.
You're not in a position where your judgement on this is worth listening to.
To planets!
It’s easy to walk through that which is not there, I do it every day!
Complete speculation.
So, rather than gravity pulling me down onto the earth, space is pushing me against it? So the earth doesn't suck after all? Cross thread points with antinatalism? And the sun is pushy, throwing it's weight around?
Yes
Interesting. I'm curious as to why space would push harder against me on Earth than when I'm on the moon. At first I might guess that the size of the earth draws more push, but since it is me being pushed regardless of what I am on, and I am the same size in either place, why the difference?
They don't say that nothing existed before the singularity, they say they don't know.
Quoting Razorback kitten
I believe the redshift of galaxies, considered to be a Doppler effect, is the basis for the Big Bang theory.
As someone mentioned it before the uniformity of the CMB is a problem for the BBT. It requires the theory of inflation, extremely rapid faster-than-light expansion of the universe to explain this homogeneity.
Thanks. That's a little easier to grasp, at least conceptually. It answers and defeats the intuition that it had to have started some place if that place is actually everywhere. I would then venture that when everywhere was in a singularity, it was really nowhere. Had it been somewhere, then we'd have to grapple with a direction back to a place that never was.
The Earth is more massive, so it curves space-time more.
So why wouldn't it cause me to be lighter? So inculcated I am in the traditional gravity thing that it's hard for me to think that space is pushing me against the earth, but if so, it would seem the earth, in curving space-time more than the moon, would actually be shielding me from the push more than if I were, say, floating in it, or on the moon. Indeed, the pressure would be greater if I were floating in it, would it not?
So, in blocking more push, would I not be lighter on earth than on the moon?
The center is by definition the point that is equidistant from the circumference. From our perspective we can't see any edge of the universe. If there was one, you'd have to get "out" of the universe to see it, but you can't because you are a part of it.
Because physics is so progressive?
That makes sense, but I'm not sure it accounts for pressure. When I go down X number of atmospheres under water, pressure increases. It is water pushing at me from all directions, like space, but still mostly down from above? But I'm lighter underwater than I am on the surface of earth where the absence of push from earth is sticking me to it. I'd think if water came to my rescue from the weight of space, then the earth might do likewise?
I'll have to ruminate on this for a while.
Think of it like this (its mu own view; I studied the matter deeply and gave it a lot of thought; I have my own thoughts on almost each scientific topic as well as on ohilosophy; I got banned from every site on each firum for looking too ideosyncratically; Im currently writing a book on my adventures on these sites; a thousand times I have seen the message: " Hello, we're writing in refererence......banned)"; thats why thd title is "Hallo, wij schrijven..." I can expose my ideas on every topic in a nice context, hopping from site to site; Im curious if I get banned here like on SE philosophy where some Kant masturbating figure kicked me out). I was saying. By the way, do you wanna know still about the big bang?Your post is already old...:smile:
We could see it hyperbolically. But only if we think hyperbolic, not the classical shape.
Alice in Wonderland effect: When Alice takes a sip from the 'Drink Me' bottle, she shrinks but it feels like everything is enlarging.
Expansion of the universe is not relative to the point of explosion (BB).
Explosion has it's beginning and end, a bomb when it explodes doesn't infinitely manifest the act of explosion, at some point parts of the bomb land and it's done.
Expansion of the universe as we observe it now is caused by dark matter and dark energy, this means every point in the universe is a point of expansion. this is why we feel like being in the center of the universe.
The universe does not expand, it's dark energy that makes the universe grow like a balloon, so every point is the center of expansion relative to surroundings.
:up: