Since this is a topic with a lot of confusion, even in technical references, are you guys agreeing or disagreeing with Davis and Lineweaver's claim that:
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by DJW001
Based on the latest cosmological models, the knowable universe is a hypersphere, the boundary of which is at a distance from the observer-- any observer-- at which the expansion of the universe is at a rate equal to the speed of light.
As you say, correctly, this is the observed boundary of the observable ('knowable') universe. That is because light from objects beyond this boundary will never reach the observer.
We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recessional velocities greater than the speed of light.
Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
In one of my personal theories of universe models there's more than one big bang, simply deduced by the fact that some galaxies collide not moving away from each other equidistant or at the same rate; our own galaxy the Milky Way is calculated to collide with Andromeda in 4 billion years with is 2.5 million light years away or 14,696,249,525,000,000,000 miles... this particular multi-bang theory model there is actually one for every galaxy with a giant black hole at the center driving the cycle..meaning big bang then galaxy then it sucks it all back in to a super hot dense state and repeats; the model for that looks like this infinite torus...
The diameter of the observable universe is estimated at about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years), putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away.
The age of the universe is defined in physical cosmology as the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best estimate of the age of the universe is 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years (4.346 ± 0.019 *10E17 seconds) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.
Originally posted by TrueBrit
When the LHC at CERN began looking for the Higgs boson, it was because there were things about the Big Bang that we just didnt get (and there still are. Many of them infact). One of these was, how did the particles created in that moment, gain mass? Higgs's theory suggested that a particle, or field thereof, imparted that mass, that a specific particle had the task of giving mass to others.
That is why the LHC was trying to "re-create" the Big Bang, because only at that point would the activity of that particle make it visible to the instruments at our disposal.
I think that the universe probably does have an outer boundary, which is constantly expanding, and at the edge of that boundary, I believe there is probably an awful lot of Higgs boson activity going on, following just behind the expansion point, giving mass to all the newborn particles. I also think that it is worth thinking about the possibility, that rather than the universe just stretching out like a rubber band, as some have compared it to over the years, it is rather more like a blast wave that keeps on growing, like a chain reaction. Sure, there will be local expansion and contraction, and certainly there will be a movement away from the centre, but in a chain reaction, the effect keeps growing.
Think of the big bang, as more of a big baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang that keeps getting bigger and bigger. We talk about that event in the past tense, but I see no evidence that the process of the birth of this universe has ever stopped.
Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by TrueBrit
What you are referring to as mass forming into galaxies is supposed to be after the big bang happened not the big bang itself.
I also don't see planets forming out of a cloud of dust around a core like gases and dust of a nebula forms stars. I see planets being formed the same way ball bearings are formed, from the ejecta from a black hole bang, the theoretical evidence for that, is the same theoretic evidence of the moon striking the Earth putting it on it's tilt.
I don't think the moon is just some rogue body; that happened to strike an already formed earth, and then got stuck in orbit or just formed there however. I think all the planetary cores being heavy metals were formed at the same time of the ejection, and in the case of Earth and moon, just happened to smack into each other, they were obviously cooled down enough not to merge into one molten body.
Why the big gap of dust and ice around Saturn known as rings if that's how planets are originally formed? That would suggest Saturn is still forming, as well as Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus which also have rings...
Recall the body found not long ago that is thought to be basically a large diamond like structure? How is dust forming that are we to believe it was formed from a giant volcano under some bizarre external pressure? It is more likely it was a large pocket of pure carbon ejected from a black hole bang.
Perhaps that sews up the gaps you see in the model? Mind you I first formed this particular model in a basic form about 25 years ago and it's grown with about every cosmological event and particle physics discovery found since, very little is based off of another theory, it even had nebula's forming stars before the scientific community did...so it's really well developed. Do I take this theoretical model or any other as truth? No, even if it or another was it wouldn't really matter would it?
No current model comes close to "and ploop there was matter born out of the midst of nothing" that would suggest a type of auto-genesis now wouldn't it? The big bang doesn't even do it...matter had to come from something was it space? Space had to come from something was it matter? That's the only real part any model can't explain science, creationist or otherwise. Even if there was a singularity that birthed duality or a mass that exploded into a plurality the singularity or mass had to come from somewhere, and the force acting on the singularity or mass needs a source too, both of these have neither...all this mass and not a source to go on.
I just dont buy the idea that the planets that orbit stars are nothing more than the swarf run off from the industrial processes of the big bang. For a start, lets talk age shall we? Our planet is 4.54 billion years old. The solar system 4.568 billion years old. The Milky Way galaxy is 13.2 billion years old. The universe is 13.77 billion years of age, give or take 59 million years. The way you are talking, it seems as if you are saying that you believe that planets, pinball like, just flew all over the place until they came to rest in thier appropriate positions. And yet, its age would suggest that unlike the universe, our planet was formed a relatively short time ago.
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by zatara
If it is expanding in different directions from a single point then it would be expansing faster than the speed of light.
I have no idea what purplemer was referring to, but Inflation was proposed in 1980 to solve some unsolved problems with cosmological observations.
Originally posted by zatara
I have no clue how this should work....can you explain this with a little more words..?
It was speculative, and still is to some extent because the hypothetical inflaton has never been proven, but since it seems to solve a lot of observational problems so well, it's now an accepted idea.
In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 10^78 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.
That's because the inflaton field only had an effect under the extreme conditions of the big bang and since we can't re-create those conditions, that's why the inflaton is still hypothetical and not confirmed with observation.
Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a slower rate.
As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally connected region. Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the Big Bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous, and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the Big Bang, a highly curved, heterogeneous universe? Inflation also explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).
This is an interesting example.
Originally posted by purplemer
If you drive a car from point zero in a line at 60 mph you would say that the gap between point zero and the car is expanding at 60 mph. If instead you now have two cars going opposite directions from the point zero you would say the gap between them is expanding at 120 mph. The same applies for the speed of light travelling in two different directions at the same time. So it is possible that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light.
In the ΛCDM concordance model all objects with redshift greater than z~1.46 are receding faster than the speed of light. This does not contradict SR because the motion is not in any observer's inertial frame. No observer ever overtakes a light beam and all observers measure light locally to be traveling at c