News1 min ago
Big Bang
38 Answers
Am I right to assume that if I had an imagery telescope and looked strait up at any point on the planet I could look back to the point of the big bang and if so if one was standing on the north pole and another on the south pole would we both see the point of origin of the universe
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by algonq5991. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A problem exists in that our definitions for the universe revolve around (no pun inteneded) the difference between "Universe (large U)" and "observable universe" (the volume of the universe within which light has had time to reach us.)
When considering the observable universe (little "u"), we can not detect any curvature and, therefore the geometry of the observable universe is considered to be flat. However, all this depends on the "Inflationary Epoch" (around -10^34 seconds after the onset of the Big Bang) during which the space which began to exist grew from the size of an atom to roughly the size of our solar system.
Many astro physicists seem to think that at one time the speed of light and speed of gravity were the same (until -10^34 seconds) at which time the speed of light began to decay or slow, while the speed of gravity did not.
Regardless, during the inflationary period, the edges of space-time exceeded the speed of light. As the event continued the speed was and is constrained by Einsteins Special Theory... but only applicable to the matter within the "grid" (or dough ball, choose your own imagery), not for the grid itself.
Most claims of speed observed in excess of the limiting speed of light are only accounting for objects (galaxies, etc.) moving away from each other whose total speed of expansion away from each other is above Eisnstein's 300 million meters per second. Each galaxy moving away from each other aren't moving within the space/time, but with it.
When considering the observable universe (little "u"), we can not detect any curvature and, therefore the geometry of the observable universe is considered to be flat. However, all this depends on the "Inflationary Epoch" (around -10^34 seconds after the onset of the Big Bang) during which the space which began to exist grew from the size of an atom to roughly the size of our solar system.
Many astro physicists seem to think that at one time the speed of light and speed of gravity were the same (until -10^34 seconds) at which time the speed of light began to decay or slow, while the speed of gravity did not.
Regardless, during the inflationary period, the edges of space-time exceeded the speed of light. As the event continued the speed was and is constrained by Einsteins Special Theory... but only applicable to the matter within the "grid" (or dough ball, choose your own imagery), not for the grid itself.
Most claims of speed observed in excess of the limiting speed of light are only accounting for objects (galaxies, etc.) moving away from each other whose total speed of expansion away from each other is above Eisnstein's 300 million meters per second. Each galaxy moving away from each other aren't moving within the space/time, but with it.
True, although if someone put forward that proposal, ludwig, it might come with its own distinct predictions.
In the long run no theory is ever 100% certain to be correct, but beyond a certain point (in particle physics, about 99.99994% I believe) it becomes unreasonable to propose a radically different alternative. If things fit the available evidence to such a degree, there is no longer any scope for reasonable doubt.
In the long run no theory is ever 100% certain to be correct, but beyond a certain point (in particle physics, about 99.99994% I believe) it becomes unreasonable to propose a radically different alternative. If things fit the available evidence to such a degree, there is no longer any scope for reasonable doubt.
I believe that in Ptolemy's "Almagest" he just about managed to make everything work, but with a caveat, I think, that the earth still needed to be slightly off-centre. One of these days I might read that work, it's a triumph of ancient mathematics even if it is wrong.
But then there are degrees of wrongness, and sometimes this is under-appreciated. At the very least, the approach taken was fairly sound: gather data, as much as possible and as accurate as possible, and feed these data into a model to see if it works or not. Make adjustments to the model as necessary, and so on. In modern science, one would also attach an error estimate to the results obtained. That didn't happen until after the Scientific Revolution (and even then it didn't happen overnight); the result is that comparing Ancient scientific results to modern ones and saying "they were wrong then, they might be wrong now" overlooks the massive changes in the methods used.
There's also a risk that people read too much into things, of course. I think I'm right in saying that for early Greek Mathematicians the debate between Heliocentric and geocentric models was at the level of a purely theoretical model (which model fits the data better?) and then later people attached too much philosophical significance to the model, and became dogmatic about it to the point of viewing disagreement as "heresy".
This last remains a potential risk to scientists today, but so long as it's recognised that the Big Bang Theory is the most accurate description of the data to date, but that new discoveries may alter this position, the risk of too much dogma is minimal. It becomes much more a question of probability. It is at this point extremely unlikely that the BBT will turn out to be substantially wrong (although several details remain to be sorted out), and equally unlikely that competing theories will turn out to be correct instead. There is therefore no reason to expect this position will change in the future.
But then there are degrees of wrongness, and sometimes this is under-appreciated. At the very least, the approach taken was fairly sound: gather data, as much as possible and as accurate as possible, and feed these data into a model to see if it works or not. Make adjustments to the model as necessary, and so on. In modern science, one would also attach an error estimate to the results obtained. That didn't happen until after the Scientific Revolution (and even then it didn't happen overnight); the result is that comparing Ancient scientific results to modern ones and saying "they were wrong then, they might be wrong now" overlooks the massive changes in the methods used.
There's also a risk that people read too much into things, of course. I think I'm right in saying that for early Greek Mathematicians the debate between Heliocentric and geocentric models was at the level of a purely theoretical model (which model fits the data better?) and then later people attached too much philosophical significance to the model, and became dogmatic about it to the point of viewing disagreement as "heresy".
This last remains a potential risk to scientists today, but so long as it's recognised that the Big Bang Theory is the most accurate description of the data to date, but that new discoveries may alter this position, the risk of too much dogma is minimal. It becomes much more a question of probability. It is at this point extremely unlikely that the BBT will turn out to be substantially wrong (although several details remain to be sorted out), and equally unlikely that competing theories will turn out to be correct instead. There is therefore no reason to expect this position will change in the future.
sorry i'm late to the discussion: so one day there is nothing there then one day 13 billion years ago there was this explosion which created all the matter in the universe. where did it come from? it seems to me that there must be parallel universes that punched thru the space time continuum, leaving that universe empty. some day will it happen in reverse?
There was no time before the Big Bang, at least not in any conventional sense, so the picture of a near-eternity of nothingness before some explosion creating everything isn't really right. The Big Bang is far more about the creation of space and time itself than it is about the creation of matter (although that didn't follow long after).
As to where it came from... no-one knows with any certainty. Science currently can trace the history of the Universe back to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, but can't probe any further yet. It's possible that some interaction with a parallel universe might be involved, eg some weird collision or other between "branes", but who knows?
As to where it came from... no-one knows with any certainty. Science currently can trace the history of the Universe back to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, but can't probe any further yet. It's possible that some interaction with a parallel universe might be involved, eg some weird collision or other between "branes", but who knows?
