FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[darwin dali]

Having just watched the Hubble Ultra-Deepfield video above I have a question that I hope will increase my knowledge of the structure of the universe, so please forgive me if some of what I am about to write seems a little naive...

According to the Big Bang Theory the universe came into existence at one point in space and time. Out of this event the entire universe popped and expanded into what we can observe today. It states in the video that the Ultra-Deepfield image records galaxies that formed as far back as 500 million years after the Big Bang. Presumably the universe was far more compact back then so therefore the target we are looking at is far smaller than we observe today. This begs the question: Once we have honed our technology to the point where we can observe the universe back to just a few million years after the Big Bang, in what direction do we point our telescope? I realise that this question is far more complex than it may first appear...

It doesn't really matter which direction since the universe is curved (for lack of better term). If you were to travel 'straight' long enough, you'd end up at the same place again after gazillions of years of travel (provided a black hole on your way didn't swallow you ).

I can go with curvature idea but there must be an observable point at which the galaxies kinda run out because they haven't formed yet, if you get what I mean? I understand the Raisin Bread analogy. It's not the expansion of the universe that I have a problem with it is the looking back in time bit, because effectively that is what we are doing when we look at objects in the sky. The further away they are, the further back in time we are looking. So, at some point and with the right technology, we should be able to at least see the remnants of the Big Bang which theoretically should be in a particular spot, or am I missing something? What complicates matters is that we are observing from a place that didn't even exist back then. My head hurts...

Any remnants of the Big Bang are by now uniformly distributed in the universe. One can actually observe those remnants as the cosmic microwave background radiation or CMB(R).

[stonemonkey]

Having just watched the Hubble Ultra-Deepfield video above I have a question that I hope will increase my knowledge of the structure of the universe, so please forgive me if some of what I am about to write seems a little naive...

According to the Big Bang Theory the universe came into existence at one point in space and time. Out of this event the entire universe popped and expanded into what we can observe today. It states in the video that the Ultra-Deepfield image records galaxies that formed as far back as 500 million years after the Big Bang. Presumably the universe was far more compact back then so therefore the target we are looking at is far smaller than we observe today. This begs the question: Once we have honed our technology to the point where we can observe the universe back to just a few million years after the Big Bang, in what direction do we point our telescope? I realise that this question is far more complex than it may first appear...

It doesn't really matter which direction since the universe is curved (for lack of better term). If you were to travel 'straight' long enough, you'd end up at the same place again after gazillions of years of travel (provided a black hole on your way didn't swallow you ).

I can go with curvature idea but there must be an observable point at which the galaxies kinda run out because they haven't formed yet, if you get what I mean? I understand the Raisin Bread analogy. It's not the expansion of the universe that I have a problem with it is the looking back in time bit, because effectively that is what we are doing when we look at objects in the sky. The further away they are, the further back in time we are looking. So, at some point and with the right technology, we should be able to at least see the remnants of the Big Bang which theoretically should be in a particular spot, or am I missing something? What complicates matters is that we are observing from a place that didn't even exist back then. My head hurts...

The big bang wasn't like an explosion that sent everything out into space, space started off small too and expanded causing everything to spread out with it, think of a bubble starting at a single point and expanding, it's surface is essentially 2 dimensional but curved in 3 dimensions and any 2 points on the bubble started at the same point but get further away from each other as it expands, we see 3 dimensional space but it is curved in 4 dimensions and the same thing is happening as space expands. At least that's the way I see it.

If you were to travel 'straight' long enough, you'd end up at the same place again after gazillions of years of travel (provided a black hole on your way didn't swallow you

You'd also have to travel faster than light since the expansion is too, there might even be an event horizon stopping us looking back so far.

[What's Burning?]

Having just watched the Hubble Ultra-Deepfield video above I have a question that I hope will increase my knowledge of the structure of the universe, so please forgive me if some of what I am about to write seems a little naive...

According to the Big Bang Theory the universe came into existence at one point in space and time. Out of this event the entire universe popped and expanded into what we can observe today. It states in the video that the Ultra-Deepfield image records galaxies that formed as far back as 500 million years after the Big Bang. Presumably the universe was far more compact back then so therefore the target we are looking at is far smaller than we observe today. This begs the question: Once we have honed our technology to the point where we can observe the universe back to just a few million years after the Big Bang, in what direction do we point our telescope? I realise that this question is far more complex than it may first appear...

It doesn't really matter which direction since the universe is curved (for lack of better term). If you were to travel 'straight' long enough, you'd end up at the same place again after gazillions of years of travel (provided a black hole on your way didn't swallow you ).

I can go with curvature idea but there must be an observable point at which the galaxies kinda run out because they haven't formed yet, if you get what I mean? I understand the Raisin Bread analogy. It's not the expansion of the universe that I have a problem with it is the looking back in time bit, because effectively that is what we are doing when we look at objects in the sky. The further away they are, the further back in time we are looking. So, at some point and with the right technology, we should be able to at least see the remnants of the Big Bang which theoretically should be in a particular spot, or am I missing something? What complicates matters is that we are observing from a place that didn't even exist back then. My head hurts...

That's the whole point in an infinite environment there is no center to look at. it's all a center relative to every other place. So you have to take it as both expansion and as infinite in combination. So when you're looking, anywhere you look the farther you look you're going back in time and you're seeing what was there 5, 8, 10 billion years ago and what you're seeing it the more condensed version before the expansion but you would have been closer to it relatively speaking and it would have been closer to you relatively speaking, but any other two points would be able to say the same thing. What is the center of an infinity that curves? There is no center only space and time as the locations are expanding relative to each other but all are still within that infinite curved universe.

[Jabberwocky]

Where was the epicenter of the big bang?

What is the universe expanding into?

[stonemonkey]

Where was the epicenter of the big bang?

Where is the centre on the surface of a ball?

What is the universe expanding into?

There is no boundary or edge to the universe so there's not that to speculate what's on the other side. There are ideas about other dimensions and branes from which the universe came into existance.

[darwin dali]

Where was the epicenter of the big bang?

Where is the centre on the surface of a ball?

What is the universe expanding into?

There is no boundary or edge to the universe so there's not that to speculate what's on the other side. There are ideas about other dimensions and branes from which the universe came into existance.

[youtube]8_rTTXCOpL8&feature=related[/youtube]

[synsei]

The ekpyrotic theory hypothesizes that the origin of the observable universe occurred when two parallel branes collided.

The ekpyrotic universe, or ekpyrotic scenario, is a cosmological model of the origin and shape of the universe. The name comes from a Stoic term ekpyrosis (Ancient Greek ἐκπύρωσις ekpurōsis) meaning conflagration or in Stoic usage "conversion into fire". The ekpyrotic model of the universe is an alternative to the standard cosmic inflation model for the very early universe; both models accommodate the standard big bang Lambda-CDM model of our universe. The ekpyrotic model is a precursor to, and part of some cyclic models.

The ekpyrotic model came out of work by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt and maintains that the universe did not start in a singularity, but came about from the collision of two branes. This collision avoids the primordial singularity and superluminal expansion while preserving nearly scale-free density fluctuations and other features of the observed universe. The ekpyrotic model is cyclic, though collisions between branes are rare on the time scale of the expansion of the universe to a nearly featureless flat expanse. Observations that may distinguish between the ekpyrotic and inflationary models include polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation and frequency distribution of the gravitational wave spectrum.

I am more comfortable with the ekpyrotic scenario and for me it helps explain a question I have pondered on for much of my life: Where does matter go once it has entered a Black Hole? Accepting that I am a very long way from being even a competent thinker in this field, my thoughts are that perhaps Black Holes are manifestations of places where the Brane in which our universe exists is connected with other Branes in the 'Bulk'. That perhaps energy in its many forms is actually shared between adjacent Branes through these connections and that this is how universes are created. I can't prove any of this of course but it sort of makes sense to me.

[darwin dali]

The ekpyrotic theory hypothesizes that the origin of the observable universe occurred when two parallel branes collided.

The ekpyrotic universe, or ekpyrotic scenario, is a cosmological model of the origin and shape of the universe. The name comes from a Stoic term ekpyrosis (Ancient Greek ἐκπύρωσις ekpurōsis) meaning conflagration or in Stoic usage "conversion into fire". The ekpyrotic model of the universe is an alternative to the standard cosmic inflation model for the very early universe; both models accommodate the standard big bang Lambda-CDM model of our universe. The ekpyrotic model is a precursor to, and part of some cyclic models.

The ekpyrotic model came out of work by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt and maintains that the universe did not start in a singularity, but came about from the collision of two branes. This collision avoids the primordial singularity and superluminal expansion while preserving nearly scale-free density fluctuations and other features of the observed universe. The ekpyrotic model is cyclic, though collisions between branes are rare on the time scale of the expansion of the universe to a nearly featureless flat expanse. Observations that may distinguish between the ekpyrotic and inflationary models include polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation and frequency distribution of the gravitational wave spectrum.

I am more comfortable with the ekpyrotic scenario and for me it helps explain a question I have pondered on for much of my life: Where does matter go once it has entered a Black Hole? Accepting that I am a very long way from being even a competent thinker in this field, my thoughts are that perhaps Black Holes are manifestations of places where the Brane in which our universe exists is connected with other Branes in the 'Bulk'. That perhaps energy in its many forms is actually shared between adjacent Branes through these connections and that this is how universes are created. I can't prove any of this of course but it sort of makes sense to me.

Black holes are not really holes, just almost infinitely dense singularities in space - think: an aircraft carrier squeezed into a matchbox. Any mass (or light for that matter, hence the name black hole) that goes beyond the so-called event horizon, will be swallowed and added to the mass of the black hole.
There is evidence that a supermassive black hole of 4 million solar masses exists at the center of our galaxy (milky way) as in most of the galaxies.

[stonemonkey]

Where does matter go once it has entered a Black Hole?

It's not certain that the singularity with infinite density exists, as DD says it could just be extremely high density and that the mass has collapsed to a size less than the schwarzchild radius but still has size beyond the event horizon. No one knows either way.
Hawking predicted that black holes evaporate by emitting radiation from just outside the event horizon so it may not be the case that whatever falls into a black hole is completely lost from the universe.

[What's Burning?]

Where was the epicenter of the big bang?

Where is the centre on the surface of a ball?

You think you're clever huh? Everyone knows the center on the surface of a ball is the little hole where you put the air in.

EDIT: My post count is at 6969. such sophomoric humor.

[LRW]

I love this sort of discussion, and in the last year have been thinking about doing a OU degree on it.....

But boy, does it blow my mind.....

[stonemonkey]

Where was the epicenter of the big bang?

Where is the centre on the surface of a ball?

You think you're clever huh? Everyone knows the center on the surface of a ball is the little hole where you put the air in.

EDIT: My post count is at 6969. such sophomoric humor.

Does that account for cosmic inflation then?

[Jabberwocky]

Where was the epicenter of the big bang?

Where is the centre on the surface of a ball?

You think you're clever huh? Everyone knows the center on the surface of a ball is the little hole where you put the air in.

EDIT: My post count is at 6969. such sophomoric humor.

Does that account for cosmic inflation then?

nothing in this game for 4 in the bed

[geetface9]

You guys disappoint me

But at the same time I'm glad that I'm the one who gets to do it............

How Big Is Our Own Solar System?

Not as big as your mom.



I was also considering saying, "well, how big is your mom?" BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jabberwocky]

Where was the epicenter of the big bang?

Where is the centre on the surface of a ball?

So what is inside the ball?