The Big Bang Theory Wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But that would not tie in with the reason you brought it up, would it?

[b]There is a prediction that over time as the universe expands faster with time that distant galaxies can be moving away from one another at relative light speed,
And I have seen claims that that is already the case. Hence my request for references to the contrary.

but ...[text shortened]... universe perhaps? The edge of the universe 🙂 ?
Think about it, what do you think you will see?

I am not sure there is an edge to the universe. Yes we are seeing light as it was when it left way back when, but if the universe was expanding at the speed of light we would not see it due to the doppler shift. I find it very very fascinating that if one were to view the universe from any point in the universe, that it appears to be the center of expansion. Makes one wonder if we could somehow travel to the present location of the most distant galaxies if we would find ouselves in the center of its expansion and even more of the universe would be seen from there. The other amazing thing is the question of what is driving the expansion? With the big bang theory we thought there was a lot of energy and everything expanded from it. Now there seems to be evidence that there is expansion not relevant to the big bang theory. The reason I brought it up was that after the universe became transparent to light which was way back early on, the light would have passed us up. If everything was much closer together back then, why is it we are just now recieving light that was billions of years ago? We are not going that fast and we don't see enough dopler shift for it to make sense. The assumption there is that the speed of light hasn't changed. Now there is some food for thought 🙂

Originally posted by joe beyser
I am not sure there is an edge to the universe. Yes we are seeing light as it was when it left way back when, but if the universe was expanding at the speed of light we would not see it due to the doppler shift. I find it very very fascinating that if one were to view the universe from any point in the universe, that it appears to be the center of expansi ...[text shortened]... ssumption there is that the speed of light hasn't changed. Now there is some food for thought 🙂

Einstein said it was finite but unbounded, like being on the surface of a big balloon, the balloon is finite in size but you can travel in the same direction forever and the universe being like that except on a higher dimensional plane where the 3D layer of the universe is curved into a higher dimension and we can travel in what we think is a straight line and lo and behold, you are going close to the speed of light and what, some 50 billion years later, you arrive back at the same co-ordinates you left. Of course it would not be the same since it would be 50 billion years in the future and Earth and the sun would be just dust particles floating in a cloud, maybe having gone through 3 generations of stars since you left but you would be at the same point in space.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]It was long assumed the universe was closed and there would ultimately be a big crunch. New evidence however indicates an open universe.

From what I understand (cosmology is not my field) the issue of whether the universe's expansion is constant, accelerating or decelerating (and whether said acceleration is constant in time) hasn't been concl ...[text shortened]... not the current theory.[/b]

What alternative hypothesis describes the empirical data better?[/b]

Yes they did believe the universe was static, and I don't think it is settled either. There is some evidence from the dopler shift that the distant galaxies are moving away from one another at a faster rate over time. One of the Universities in the US did a study to take a measurement of the background radiation with the hypothesis that galaxies should block it and there would be a shadow. They did not find this to be true. Now they are thinking that the galaxies contribute to the background radiation. I don't have a more plausible explanation of where everything came from as I have no way of seeing into the other dimensions of reality. Quantum time is a fairly new concept and I wouldn't be surprised if quantum speed and distance will come to light. If everything that is comprised of sub atomic particles makes their move once every pulse of quantum time then virtually anything is possible. Imagine that our existence is merely one time slot of a large multiplexing super universe system.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Yes they did believe the universe was static, and I don't think it is settled either. There is some evidence from the dopler shift that the distant galaxies are moving away from one another at a faster rate over time. One of the Universities in the US did a study to take a measurement of the background radiation with the hypothesis that galaxies should bl ...[text shortened]... magine that our existence is merely one time slot of a large multiplexing super universe system.

Quantum speed and distance already exist.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Einstein said it was finite but unbounded, like being on the surface of a big balloon, the balloon is finite in size but you can travel in the same direction forever and the universe being like that except on a higher dimensional plane where the 3D layer of the universe is curved into a higher dimension and we can travel in what we think is a straight line ...[text shortened]... gone through 3 generations of stars since you left but you would be at the same point in space.

I kinda like the raisin bread analogy. From every raisins point of view, everything is expanding away from it. A finite universe suits our minds well as we can not imagine the infinite as everything we experience has a beginning and and end. If the big bang proves itself then where did it come from? What was there for it to happen? Did it come from another dimension of reality? If so then where did that come from. On and on one can go with it but the fact is we have no intuitive explanations as all that we experience here in our lives is finite.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I kinda like the raisin bread analogy. From every raisins point of view, everything is expanding away from it. A finite universe suits our minds well as we can not imagine the infinite as everything we experience has a beginning and and end. If the big bang proves itself then where did it come from? What was there for it to happen? Did it come from anothe ...[text shortened]... fact is we have no intuitive explanations as all that we experience here in our lives is finite.

That raisin idea is pretty close to reality. For a long time I thought the expansion included all the atoms of the universe getting larger at the same time but then found out the only thing expanding is the distance between galaxies. Not sure yet why that doesn't include every atom, you would think the space bits inside each atom would get less dense as time goes on also but there must be something else going on that prevents that.

Have no idea what that would be however.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I am not sure there is an edge to the universe.

If there isn't, then your claim that the background radiation of the big bang would have 'passed us' would be false. The only way we could not see the big bang itself is if the universe is finite and bounded. (edges)

Yes we are seeing light as it was when it left way back when, but if the universe was expanding at the speed of light we would not see it due to the doppler shift.
Space itself is stretching. If say the nearest star is moving away (due to space expanding) at 1km/s then a star twice as far is moving at 2km/s. Very distant objects would be moving at greater than the speed of light. In fact, if the nearest star in my example was 1 light year way, then only 300,000 light years away, stars would be moving away from us at the speed of light. However, light could still have got from them to us. Give it some thought, or do the math and you'll see.

I find it very very fascinating that if one were to view the universe from any point in the universe, that it appears to be the center of expansion.
I don't believe thats true. References? In what way does it appear to be the centre?

Now there seems to be evidence that there is expansion not relevant to the big bang theory.
My understanding was that there was expansion due to an unknown amount of energy (called dark energy). The big bang remains relevant.

The reason I brought it up was that after the universe became transparent to light which was way back early on, the light would have passed us up.
You seem to be very confused on this point. The big bang was not at a specific point with light radiating away from it and us at some given distance from it. The way you say that, its as if the light from the big bang has gone passed us and is now heading off into outer space. In which direction may I ask? Think about it for a moment. Are you saying there is some star somewhere 'passed us' where they can still see it?

If everything was much closer together back then, why is it we are just now receiving light that was billions of years ago?
What we can see, is where it was 'back then' It was not 'much closer together' than we see it. If we see it 10 billion light years away, that is how far away it was, 10 billion years ago. Its probably much further away now. Its not quite that simple because of the expansion of space, so maybe it was only 9 billion light years away and another billion was added on during the light travel time.

The assumption there is that the speed of light hasn't changed. Now there is some food for thought 🙂
Its not an assumption we have to make. We can test it. (and have done so)

Originally posted by twhitehead
If there isn't, then your claim that the background radiation of the big bang would have 'passed us' would be false. The only way we could not see the big bang itself is if the universe is finite and bounded. (edges)

[b]Yes we are seeing light as it was when it left way back when, but if the universe was expanding at the speed of light we would not see ...[text shortened]... od for thought 🙂
Its not an assumption we have to make. We can test it. (and have done so)[/b]

He is talking about the center idea as if we were on the surface of a balloon, it would seem like we were in the center since it is exactly twice the distance to any furthest point in the universe, to go and come back, you can do that in any direction so it would be like we were in the center of a circle, which you can see if you take the point where you are on a balloon and flatten it to a circle you would be at the center point no matter where on the balloon you reside.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If there isn't, then your claim that the background radiation of the big bang would have 'passed us' would be false. The only way we could not see the big bang itself is if the universe is finite and bounded. (edges)

[b]Yes we are seeing light as it was when it left way back when, but if the universe was expanding at the speed of light we would not see ...[text shortened]... od for thought 🙂
Its not an assumption we have to make. We can test it. (and have done so)[/b]

The best thing I can think of to get my point across is fireworks. When fire works initially explode in the sky there is an initial flash of light. As all the sparkly things are expanding away from the explosion site they have energy themselves to emit light so we can see the awesome pattern. From a sparkly things point of view the light from the initial explosion has past them and there is no more light from the explosion to be seen from their point of view. The exception is that there is still heat and infrared energy in the air as it was heated up and so it will linger there for awhile. Space nearly vacuum so we shouldn't say it is the same thing. The dark energy and dark matter patchwork that have been done is more to give our beloved big bang theory a life line than anything observed. Thank you for the insight and the figures, I will give this some thought. I wonder if all space expands including the space between the nucleus of atoms and the electrons. Could it be everything expands and we don't notice it as everything is expanding at the same rate? What was the result of the test of the speed of light eons ago with what we observe today? Are you saying that because the expansion of space that the change of positions of distant objects over time will not have the same dopler shift as objects moving through space away from each other? Interesting. I don't have a source for you right now but what I was describing was from the raisin bread model. If it is true that the expansion of space itself is happening, then we would expect there to be a starting point . If the expansion rate is increasing with time then there may have been a time when the universe was nearly static. It doesn't prove a big bang though. The expansion of space itself may be the manifestation of the next dimension. It is hard to wrap our mind around the hyper cube but the expansion of space could just be the answer. What would be neat is if mass was increasing as well only we don't see it as all mass is increasing and our measurements are relative.

Originally posted by sonhouse
He is talking about the center idea as if we were on the surface of a balloon, it would seem like we were in the center since it is exactly twice the distance to any furthest point in the universe, to go and come back, you can do that in any direction so it would be like we were in the center of a circle, which you can see if you take the point where you ar ...[text shortened]... atten it to a circle you would be at the center point no matter where on the balloon you reside.

That pretty much sums it up except for the surface of the balloon. We have too many dimensions for that. I like the raisin bread model even though I can't stand raisins. 🙂

Originally posted by joe beyser
That pretty much sums it up except for the surface of the balloon. We have too many dimensions for that. I like the raisin bread model even though I can't stand raisins. 🙂

I invented a new candy, solid sugar shaped like the letter J filled with raisins, I call it, of course, Raisin cane🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
I invented a new candy, solid sugar shaped like the letter J filled with raisins, I call it, of course, Raisin cane🙂

The weather has been nasty here or I would have been raisin some cane of my own.

Originally posted by sonhouse
He is talking about the center idea as if we were on the surface of a balloon,

I disagree. If you are on the surface of a balloon, there is no reason to think you are in the centre of it. If you drew a map of the surface you might put yourself in the centre of the map, just as map makers have done with the surface of the earth, but what he said is that it seems like we are in the centre, and I don't get that that is the case at all.

Originally posted by joe beyser
The best thing I can think of to get my point across is fireworks. When fire works initially explode in the sky there is an initial flash of light.

The so called back ground radiation is not from the initial explosion, its from the point when the universe first became transparent. How big was it by then? From the OP, one would think that the universe was at lest 10 billion light years across, but I am not sure how to calculate it.. Maybe it is infinite.

As all the sparkly things are expanding away from the explosion site they have energy themselves to emit light so we can see the awesome pattern.
Except there was no explosion site. The whole universe was an explosion site. We are not expanding away from it, we are just expanding. There is no one raisin on the bread that marks the location of the big bang. There is big bang which ever direction you look. Hence the uniform background radiation.

The dark energy and dark matter patchwork that have been done is more to give our beloved big bang theory a life line than anything observed.
Nevertheless, the lifeline is there, contrary to what you seemed to be suggesting.

I wonder if all space expands including the space between the nucleus of atoms and the electrons.
Yes, that would be the case. It would be kind of weird if it only expanded between atoms and not internally to them.

Could it be everything expands and we don't notice it as everything is expanding at the same rate?
The expansion is so slow you couldn't measure it with current instruments. Additionally, the movement of matter is so fast relatively that the effect is not noticeable except over vast distances. It doesn't even have a measurable effect on the galaxy as far as I am aware. You have to go to inter galactic distances to see any effects.

What was the result of the test of the speed of light eons ago with what we observe today?
I haven't yet found a reference, but I am pretty sure there are good reasons to believe it hasn't changed much since not long after the big bang.
I suspect also that it is so tightly intertwined with the laws of physics that any significant change would change physics enough for things like galaxies and stars to work differently and look different and we would see the difference in distant galaxies, but I am just speculating here.

Are you saying that because the expansion of space that the change of positions of distant objects over time will not have the same dopler shift as objects moving through space away from each other?
Yes.

I don't have a source for you right now but what I was describing was from the raisin bread model. If it is true that the expansion of space itself is happening, then we would expect there to be a starting point .
Yes, the dough before it goes in the oven. But the raising bread model is about the surface of the bread, not the bread as a whole. The surface is not expanding into anything and there is no one raisin that was the 'starting point'. All the raisins were present at the starting point and they have not moved. Space has expanded between them.

If the expansion rate is increasing with time then there may have been a time when the universe was nearly static. It doesn't prove a big bang though.
There is just no good model of gravity that allows for a static universe.

The expansion of space itself may be the manifestation of the next dimension. It is hard to wrap our mind around the hyper cube but the expansion of space could just be the answer. What would be neat is if mass was increasing as well only we don't see it as all mass is increasing and our measurements are relative.
Nothing wrong with speculating, and you may even make full fledged hypothesis and do all the math etc. But until you can show your hypothesis matches experiment (what we see) and hopefully also make predictions then it is just a hypothesis, and the big bang theory stands. So far you don't even have a hypothesis, just very vague speculation, but as I say, there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. If you are on the surface of a balloon, there is no reason to think you are in the centre of it. If you drew a map of the surface you might put yourself in the centre of the map, just as map makers have done with the surface of the earth, but what he said is that it seems like we are in the centre, and I don't get that that is the case at all.

It just appears that way. Not just here but from everywhere. You have said that space is expanding. I agree with that for now.