Early origins of the universe

[Gerry Baby]

If, as it is thought the universe started with a big bang, where all matter was much closer together, why is it then when they look into deepest space, with the hubble telescope, we are told that they see fewer and fewer glalaxies, less and less matter?? If we are actually looking back in time when looking further into deep space, why is it that we don't see an abundance of galaxies, lots of matter closer together? This has been puzzling me for ages.

[Ray The Grey]

The Earth was part of the matter released in the Big Bang, so all the energy and light from that passed by where we are currently. Scientists are now sure it is possible to view the outer edges of the universe, way out from where we are. This is where the universe is still expanding and effectively the process is similar to first momnets after the matter expanded outwards in 'nothing'.

They see fewer galaxies going outwards as most matter has ceased to travel away from the centre (Big Bang wise) anywhere near as quickly.

If you imagine an explosion, most of the remnants/bits are spread in a circle a certain distance from the centre, there will be less closer and less further away and the distibution will depend on size and the way it has exploded.

Looking at the edges of the explosion there will not be as much as further in. I hope this helps.

[Gerry Baby]

It does help Ray thank you, so that means that the epicentre of the "big bang" is not known.  But we can assume that it is not where were are looking, is it not possible to focus our telescopes on a part of the sky that appears to have more dense material?  Assuming there was a big bang, it seems logical to me then that somewhere in the sky from earths view point will have a part more dense, due to the big bang.  Or can we not see that far?  Would it not be possible to work out the most likely position of the big bang by looking at a place where super-clusters exist of galaxies, or am I doing my usual and over simplifying it??  lol Merrry Christmas

[Ray The Grey]

It is possible to identify the start point of the universe. If the earth was a piece of shrapnel then it was blown about a third (very approx) of the way to the edge of the universe.

We can see light & dark from the edge of the universe as it is moving faster then the initial explosion - ie the creation of the universe - as this light from further afield is just reaching us now - with very powerful telescopes.

The density of galaxies in the universe has aras that are denser than others but this is due to where they have ended up after the big bang. If you used a lot of explosives to blow up a ball of concrete those pieces would end up spread across the ground. If the earth is one of those pieces we can see the other pieces. Now if the expansion continues and we look out we will see the effects continuing and objects moving outwards.

Looking where the Big Bang started there will be little or no material as it has been  blown across the universe from that point. Sorry it is quite hard to explain clearly. Please ask again for anything that isn't clear.

[QmunkE]

Um, okay, first it took a long time for any matter to form after the big bang at all - for a long time there were only very hot elementary particles and energy whizzing around. At some point, the universe becomes "transparent" and larger particles form, which in turn become the first molecules, mostly Hydrogen.

The first protostars and protogalaxies were formed as clouds of Hydrogen atoms were attracted by each other's gravity, eventually becoming dense enough to begin the process of nuclear fusion. At the same time, the clouds of matter are still spreading at millions of miles per hour "outwards" from each other.

If you look far enough back in space (and time), the point is that there were no galaxies to look at.

[tracymort]

Tell you what does my head in (in fact it's why i wanted to study physics) and has done since i was about 7 - what are we expanding into? 

I did go to a lecture once (think it was about superstrongs) and the guy said that we only have 4d brains so how can we be expected to understand everything about something with many more dimensions.  that kind of helps!

[Gerry Baby]

I am deeply grateful for the answers so far, and I thank the participants very much, however to realise that I only have a  4d brain on Boxing Day comes as a big surprise to me.  It may take me a few days to recover, and to be honest I need to take time to read and re read the answers as right now I still dont "get it". Well after a bottle of white and half a bottle of red who can blame me, wish you guys were here with me right now, as I would love a good blether about this stuff. Seasons greetings grasshoppers. xxxxx gerry

[landie]

According to recent theories, the universe as we know it is a mere fragment of a much larger 'multiverse'. The theory helps to explain the big bang, which was caused when two of an unlimited number of energy fields collided. Within the Multiverse there are an infinite number of so called universes. I believe the 'M' theory has something to do with it, but the eleventh dimension confuses me, i'm ok with four.

[curlyfilm]

so if the universe is never ending (must be just think about it, where does it end, it does'nt) how does this all contract into one ball