physics question nagging me about big bang

Expansion...

Now I am just a layman but if space/time is expanding then how would we know this? I mean they say that galaxies are accellerating away because of this expansion but I guess it is hard for me to grasp.

I guess I look at it in a simple term. If I am expanding as well as the whole Universe and say I want to measure a piece of wood to cut. The wood is expanding, the tape measure is expanding and even my hand holding the wood and tape is expanding at the same rate how am I to know since I come up with the same measurement every time, just the moment before I started to measure I am ever so slightly smaller than I was after the measurement. If I cut that stick of wood at a specific length and measure again (just a little bit more "expanded" again) I will come up with the same measurement. If the expansion rates are the same for everything then how would I actually know?

Now I can see that on a universal scale that when we see that the further away the galaxies, the faster they seem to be moving away, wouldn't that just mean we are looking back into time as well? The far galaxies would reflect times closer to the big bang so of course we would see them moving away faster because, from our point in time and space, we are ahead in time from what we observe of those far away galaxies. Yet the closer we look the less expansion we see. Andromeda is on a collision course with the Milky Way. How is this possible if everything is expanding away from each other from galaxies to molecules? What baseline is there for comparison?

I've always had problems with the Big Bang but in reality I am no scientist. Just a simple guy that has read a huge amount of literature and I feel that we are really missing something fundamental.

Space cannot "expand" into non-existence, so there is more space. Non-existence is a self annihilating concept that requires a consciousness to invaidate it. The instant a consciousness averts its sphere of consciousness to consider non-existence, it exists, thereby violating the pure definition of an absolute non-existence.

Space is infinite, time is infinite, there never was a beginning, there cannot be a termination. There is only evermore change and that which cannot change. Religions of the finites contaminate Truth.

Originally posted by reject
I had to repost this because it turns out I don't have permission in the research forum. Mods, please move to whatever appropriate category. thanks.

I have heard about "inflation" and how, during the first moments of the big bang, space was traveling faster than the speed of light.

so, here's my question: If space was expanding faster than the speed of light, I have to wonder about temporal ramifications. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A PART OF OUR UNIVERSE TRAVELED BACK IN TIME DURING THE FIRST MOMENTS OF THE BIG BANG?

I mean, we all have heard about special relativity. How the speed of light is constant regardless whether you're sitting still, moving away, or in a head-on direction towards the light; no matter what your speed.

Also, it is well known how time slows down as you approach the speed of light.

(as a related aside, the stronger the gravity, the slower the time also.)

is time slower in some part of the universe because of how fast its space expanded?

In the extreme speed of expansion during the first moments of the big bang, could the universe have expanded into the past AND/OR COULD THE UNIVERSE HAVE ALSO EXPANDED INTO ANOTHER DIMENSION(S) ALTOGETHER?

would there be telltale signs if these were the case?

COULD THIS ACCOUNT FOR WHY GALAXIES SEEM TO STILL BE ACCELERATING AWAY FROM EACH OTHER INSTEAD OF SLOWING DOWN?

oh well, at least I finally put it out there

Because of inflation where the universe expanded in a faster than light speed event, proof of that event can be seen. The universe is not actually expanding right now. But when we look at the light from other galaxies we are looking into the past. The further out you go, the faster the universe seems to be expanding, but, not really because matter doesn't go faster than light. galaxies do however move around and some at dizzying speeds, but all that is "within" the universe. But the theory of expansion is not what they think it is today. We can see the history of the event, but that's all it is. At some point the universe will begin it's contraction. As more and more black holes form they will begin to pull on space-time and bring it back into the singularity.

Originally posted by Terminal1
What gets me is if galaxies are speeding away from one another in expansion... why is Andromeda and the Milky Way on course to slam into each other?

Just wondering...

I would bet that if were able to pan out to where galaxies looked like stars they would be in a typical galaxies spiral shape. Seems a natural way of events.

If you think about it, the universe was created in the big bang and all our matter was 99.9 Hydrogen. This caused massive stars...massive...that had very short life cycles and went supernova very quickly. The matter created in those supernova's make up the other 91 natural elements. That matter went all which ways and gravity pulled it all together again into galaxies and then stars and planets. So we have galaxies going all which ways but ever expanding too, and sometimes they crash into each other.

Also our space is infinite with matter expanding within that space.

Originally posted by reject

so, here's my question: If space was expanding faster than the speed of light, I have to wonder about temporal ramifications. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A PART OF OUR UNIVERSE TRAVELED BACK IN TIME DURING THE FIRST MOMENTS OF THE BIG BANG?

@ times 1 wonders how this data WOULD be affected if say those observing seen or understood a different way this big bang data. Using the big bang data as example, if during a pour/drop or say INTRODUCTION of energy into a new Growing energy containment device from its Original Birth or CREATED ENERGY ZONE.

Like proton bundles introduced into the LHC when they collide do the all go out ward (time)... OR are they bouncing of each others micro energy fields they possess, in a larger ratio in 1 direction why @ the same time generating their micro energy fields Repelling/FORCING -some or other- collision responding particles to go other directions possibly in ward (back in time) towards Origin intra points perhaps of collisions. Thing is when some observe with potential LHC or MORE advanced unshared collider type machines that try to re-manifest the beginning of CREATION with particle collisions, those human or non human observers have to consider that, there may not of been an ORIGINAL CREATION (big bang like COLLISION of energy) as that's kind of spontaneous and uncontrolled like collider events injected with mixbond particles without FULL assessed outcome formulas ran and accepted 1 thinks. It to 1 subjectively DOES feel like its Controlled from afar its just some try to understand perhaps w/o accepting the EARLY stage TEACHINGS to allow better understanding and so seek other DATA based off of spontaneous collision events using LIMITED materials to gain more Objective data.. Limited ??? meaning if the use of a stronger material then the current "Known" used like gold AU proton bundles or others. Then maybe more accurate data could or would be formed... Alas WE all are given our WILLS (to manifest?) and in the Collective together we add and share what is found Subjectively and so 1 wishes ALL luck seeking who wish not to accept what cannot be found in this PHASE of EXISTENCE due to LIMITED AWARNESS levels based on the manifested beings conscious understanding of itself and energy containment zones.

1 is not professionalized in the physics realm of understanding OP, so this is the best 1 could share in relation to your OP. As far as using collider events data if related to what is called the big bang theory HERE to evaluate OBJECTIVE CREATION REALITY DATA... In this CREATOR Creation Energy zone part, called UNIVERSE. Then YES its possible for PARTS to bounce or Propel Out ward to points sent and be repelled back to point of energy (with manifest potentials) Intra Origin, almost near same times -periods -speeds it seems using potential LHC or MORE advanced unshared collider type machines data. VERY good question OP, nice.

NAMASTE*******

reply to post by Astyanax


it's because I'm just thinking big bang = ftl = gravitational wave...the speed & gravity, they both affect time.

In my mind there must be an effect on time (and possibly dimensional also because I read somewhere gravity bleeds into other dimensions)

all the ingredients are there for what could possibly cause anomalies in time and dimension

I’ve been meaning to make a separate thread about this, but I haven't figured out how to make math formulas look right in a post. I'll try putting squares and cubes in red, hopefully that will make things clear enough.

So, if anyone is interested:

A few weeks ago, I was playing around with some formulas.

F=ma(cos(theta)) and F=Gm1m2/r2

The first, of course, is the equation for Force; Mass times Acceleration times the cosine of the angle between them. The second is the equation for the Force of Gravitational Attraction, which is the Gravitational Constant times the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance between them.

Now, if you imagine two masses in space for the first equation, the angle between them is zero, the cosine is 1, so we can rewrite that as F=ma.

On the second equation, when we multiply the two masses together we get mass squared. Also, for the sake of clarity, I want to change the r to an l, since it represents a length. So we can rewrite that one to F=Gm2/l2. So now we have two Force equations, we can combine them to:

Gm2/l2=ma

If we divide both sides by mass, we get:

Gm/l2=a

The units for acceleration are length divided by time squared, (l/t2), so:

Gm/l2=l/t2

Now, we can multiply both sides by length squared:

Gm=l3/t2

And multiply both sides by time squared:

l3=Gmt2

So what is this telling us? I believe it is saying, in mathematical terms, that whenever you have mass and time, it will generate three dimensional space, at a rate proportional to the Gravitational Constant. That would explain why the universe is expanding, and even tell us the rate of expansion, if the amount of mass in the universe remained constant.

However, if we rewrite the equation:

m2=l3/(Gt2)

That is telling us that whenever we have three dimensional space and time, it will generate mass. This might explain dark matter, if empty space, given time, will create mass.

For those of you that read and understand all of that, I want to say that I appreciate your time and attention.

reply to post by VictorVonDoom

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
m2=l3/(Gt2)

why'd you multiply mass by itself in your last equation?

it could just mean, one factor cannot exist without the others though

where there's one, there are the others

Hmmm... The Big Bang. Well, considering most contemporary physics considers time to be non-linear, I would say it's a quaint holdover from an earlier time and cosmology. Even physicists are reluctant to give up the notion of a God creating everything at some point and having things run from there -- looking at the universe as having a beginning.

Actually, the way it turns out, the universe doesn't follow time from the past through the present and into the future. It's constantly shifting forwards and backwards in time and space through areas of non-space (not exactly wormholes) that can range in size from subatomic to the size of the universe itself. Like this, but on multiple dimensional levels.



The "Big Bang" is the singular point in the middle there where everything is "squished" together. But it's not like it existed at one point and doesn't now. It always exists. It's there right now, everywhere.

In my opinion, anyway. I'm no Stephen Hawking.

reply to post by reject


I'm sorry, that was a typo. That should be a single mass. Thank you for catching that. It was late when I was typing that out.

But yes, it does imply that the three are intertwined. At the Big Bang, time = 0, so space = 0. As soon as time is non-zero, space is generated. As time increases, space increases.

Another thing I think I screwed up on was my conclusion after that equation. It shows that mass would increase as space increases, but mass would decrease as time increases. So the rate at which mass is generated would be slower than the rate at which space is generated. So I guess the conclusion is that the universe would continue to get less dense as time increases.

reply to post by Astyanax

The universe isn't expanding 'into' anything. Space doesn't exist outside the universe—even if you favour a 'multiverse' hypothesis like BriGuyTM90. If there is anything 'outside' the universe, it isn't what we call space, and we shall never know what it is.

This is quite interesting. How does science prove this?

When did they observe anything outside our universe?

Theonly space scientists can obsere is from point of observation and out wards. There is no chance in hell that they can observe a uiverse exspanding faster than light.

reply to post by spy66

You've been asking these questions on ATS for years, spy66. It seems you don't like the answers you're given. Well, I'm afraid I have no new ones for you; you'll have to make do with the old.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by spy66

 

You've been asking these questions on ATS for years, spy66. It seems you don't like the answers you're given. Well, I'm afraid I have no new ones for you; you'll have to make do with the old.

I have been asking this for a long time. Because i am not satisfied with this answer.

If there is anything 'outside' the universe, it isn't what we call space, and we shall never know what it is

.

You do say that: "If" anything exists outside our universe, it isn't what we call space, and we shall never know what it is If you can state this than you and your scientific friends dont know. You dont know if there is anything "space" outside our universe. Because you cant observe it as you also admitt.

reply to post by spy66

You do say that: "If anything exists outside our universe, it isn't what we call space, and we shall never know what it is." If you can state this than you and your scientific friends dont know.

Have you ever heard a genuine scientist state positively that we do know? I doubt that very much.

There are hypotheses: many of them. There are infinite universes and various kinds of 'multiverse', many-worlds hypotheses, universes nested within other universes, two-dimensional universes that appear three-dimensional to people inside them, and who knows what else. Among all these hypotheses there is only one which – sort of – allows for 'universes' hanging in empty space. This is an infinite, expanding universe in which matter is clumped together with vast empty spaces in between. The clumps are so far apart they don't exist to each other. They don't interact.

An inhabitant of any one clump will think that clump's the universe. But what the chump on the clump doesn't know is that there are other clumps, and even though they're far apart, they all had a single origin and they're all part of one universe.

I don't think that's the sort of thing you have in mind, though.You think the universe has an inside and an outside. Well it doesn't, at least not an outside in three dimensions. I suppose you've played with a Möbius strip in your time – a strip of paper with only one side instead of the usual two. The universe is sort of like that. It has no outside, only an inside.

You dont know if there is anything "space" outside our universe. Because you cant observe it as you also admitt.

Yes, I know this is the bit you don't get. You think we have to see it. But the fact that the universe has no outside is built into the definition of the word 'universe'. You'll just have to get used to it, that's all.