Why can we not see where the "big bang" happened ?

[Cloengaa]

Hey all.

I was just sitting and wondering.

If we say the universe is 14.8 bill years old and we decide that by the redshift in objects very very far away.

We can agree on that the further we look the longer back in time we go, but should the universe not despand then ? Would that not mean that there would be a narrower and narrower window with objects in it ?

As I can not believe the big bang happened right next to earth, the the further back we look the narrower the field should be. So why is it not that ?

Any science guys out there with a good answer ?

[Knight of Clear Skies]

It's all quite unintuitive but basically the Big Bang happened everywhere (at least as far as our local universe is concerned), not in a particular place.

We can't actually see the Big Bang itself as the early universe was opaque to visible light. The CMB is actually from a few hundred thousand years later when the universe had expanded and cooled enough for neutral atoms to form. This well written article may help.

[ronin]

It occurred "everywhere" because the big bang was "everywhere" coming into existance. It was a bit squashed up at the time.

The other aspect is that you are inside of "everywhere".

[luna]

Think of an uninflated balloon representing the singularity where the Big Bang started. When we blow up the balloon the centre is not the entire surface of the balloon.

If I am not mistaken, we will never be able to see the edge of the Universe because soon after the Big Bang there was 'inflation' where the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light.

[luna]

I think you inadvertently quoted your above post luna,

so I've edited it out,  seeing as you've added nothing to it.  .

Ron. 

[ronin]

Think of an uninflated balloon representing the singularity where the Big Bang started. When we blow up the balloon the centre is not the entire surface of the balloon.

If I am not mistaken, we will never be able to see the edge of the Universe because soon after the Big Bang there was 'inflation' where the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light.

The term "see" is a bad one.

We can "see" as far as the hubble radius, after that the universe is moving away faster the the speed of light so the light from an object beyond that can never get to us.

However we can "see" to just after the big bang as we can detect/measure the CMB.

So the term is to some extent inappropriate.

Actually many terms we use are inappropriate and they add to the confusion.

The idea of "inflation" additionally means that the period of inflation is as far back as we can "see", the process would destroy any information from before and during it. It is one of those areas where cosmologists find that inflation provides serious looking answers but also the nature of it prevents the next step back in time.

[mikeDnight]

Something to bear in mind is that the Big Bang is only a theory and not fact. Also, its a theory that has major issues. One of those issues being the fact that some objects appear to be travelling faster than the speed of light, so the laws of physics break down, leaving many scientists very unhappy.

Einstein stated that space is a consequence of mass. In other words, if all the mass in the universe were removed, then space would not exist. That being so, then it seems reasonable to conclude that for space to be expanding, then matter must be spontaneously coming into existence creating that space.

Although there's a lot of effort gone into trying to understand the origin of the universe, and many clever individuals have dedicated their lives to trying to make sense of it, the truth is that we simply do not know if the universe came into existence due to a Big Bang, from the spontaneous production of matter from energy, or indeed if it has always existed.

Mike

[LukeSkywatcher]

Einstein stated that space is a consequence of mass. In other words, if all the mass in the universe were removed, then space would not exist. That being so, then it seems reasonable to conclude that for space to be expanding, then matter must be spontaneously coming into existence creating that space.

Would stars like our own Sun and even bigger stars be the cause of new matter being created?. I mean, stars work by nuclear fusion/fission. They give off elements such as Helium etc which go on to bond with other elements to form new ones and thus creating new matter. Also when a star dies, it throws off its own matter into the universe which i'm thinking gets recycled back into the universe.

Dark matter is another thing to think about. Its said that there is way more of that in the universe then ordinary matter. Not really sure where i'm going with all of this. Its all a bit of a brain musher.

My main issue with the big bang theory is that it wants us to believe that out of nothing came everything. I just cant grasp that. Even if there was the smallest of micro nano teeny weeny speck of cosmic dust that exploded and caused the universe to form..............what was that same micro nano teeny weeny speck of dust suspended in before it blew up?.

I kind of like the idea that the universe is forever being created in something like the BBT and one day will implode (The Big Crunch Theory) and then explode into existence again and so on an so on in a never ending chain of exploding and imploding. 

I dont like using the word "explode" for how the universe was created, but you get my gist.

 

[laser_jock99]

.......or indeed if it has always existed.

Mike

That's a mind blowing thought. Something with no beginning or end! A universe that has been in existence for ever.

[ronin]

One of those issues being the fact that some objects appear to be travelling faster than the speed of light, so the laws of physics break down, leaving many scientists very unhappy.

None I am aware of are going faster the the speed of light.

Some may be outside the hubble radius but they are not moving faster then the speed of light, space-time is expanding faster then the speed of light and carrying them along with it. Their velocity in space-time is very small.

Seperate the object from the medium.

Have a small electric toy (galaxy) with a max speed of 2mph, put it on a moving belt at Heathrow (space-time) moving at 10 mph

Put toy on belt - how fast is the toy going 2mph or faster then 2 mph, if faster then how is it exceeding it's maximum.

At extreme distances any speed of the galaxy or object is minute compared to the expansion of space time relative to us, but it is space-time that is expanding not the object that is in effect moving.

Would stars like our own Sun and even bigger stars be the cause of new matter being created?. I mean, stars work by nuclear fusion/fission. They give off elements such as Helium etc which go on to bond with other elements to form new ones and thus creating new matter. Also when a star dies, it throws off its own matter into the universe which i'm thinking gets recycled back into the universe.

Problem there is that the sun destroys about 6x10¹¹ Kg of hydrogen per second, all that gets converted to energy so after 10 billion years that is a large loss of mass that can never be available for the next generation of stars. It no longer exists as matter, just electromagnetic energy.

Also the sun has converted hydrogen to helium, the next stars want hydrogen not helium to burn, so less hydrogen. When our sun goes bang there is a fair bit less of it then when started and less of what is left is hydrogen.

I suspect that a steady state universe where matter "appears" would exclude us observing an expanding universe, nothing has a reason to be moving away since it did not start with a big bang. No "bang" would seem to equal no "explosion" and so "expansion". 

The term "big bang" was from Sir Fred Hoyle who opposed the theory, he used the term "this supposed Big Bang" as a derogatory term, unfortunately it stuck and became the popular description.

I suspect that like it or not, the big bang theory is a bit like the "duck" theory - if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then almost certainly it is a duck.

The universe looks like it came from a "big bang", moves like it came from a "big bang" and the CMB is the sound of a "big bang".

Nothing else matches but everything matches to a big bang.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I personally think that humans will NEVER understand how the universe was formed. As a species though, we will always seek answers.

Its what makes us Human and what separates us from the rest of life here on this planet. We humans as a species question the universe. 

[Earl]

There is a growing school of Professional thought that the "Big Bang" never happend check the horizon docutmentry before the big bang, it has lots of good ideas from big names.

[Zakalwe]

Its a very common misconception that the BBT explains the creation of the Universe. It doesn't. It concerns itself with the development of the Universe after the initial expansion.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions

As for objects moving faster than c- relativity only forbids objects accelerating to c. Space-time itself can expand at speeds greater than c. Mass tells space-time how to bend and space-time tells mass how to move.

[Earl]

The BBT does not work befor an incredible small amount of time  after the thoretical start as our current knoledge of physics and it just do not work. (syaing that neither does quantum thorey or general relativity if i undertsnad correclty)

It is fascinating and i have a bit of a passion for any news on this.

[D4N]

Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, all things that have been thought up to explain observations from our limited view point. It is entirely possible that none of these are correct.

How you describe them is important though, dark energy for example is just something we don't understand that appears to be causing the universe to expand faster. Dark matter appears to cause an increase in gravitational effects that cannot be explained by visible matter, it may not be matter at all.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sonicfishcake42]

Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, all things that have been thought up to explain observations from our limited view point. It is entirely possible that none of these are correct.

How you describe them is important though, dark energy for example is just something we don't understand that appears to be causing the universe to expand faster. Dark matter appears to cause an increase in gravitational effects that cannot be explained by visible matter, it may not be matter at all.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quite right! These things are only framework in which we can build a semi-functioning model of what, why and when. Most widely accepted theories struggle to integrate with each other. There's a very limited amount that we can perceive from our view point. I often ponder if the observable universe is actually just as insignificant to a greater collective as a star is to a galaxy.

Stars form galaxies, galaxies form clusters, filaments and so on... I just want the full picture!!! haha 

[Imp_Perfect]

We would all like the full picture  but not knowing is what drives us onward as a species.

[Earl]

We would all like the full picture  but not knowing is what drives us onward as a species.

agreed, and the more we kno the more we find out we dont know thats the really exciting part for me

[Astrobits]

In reply to the original post I would have thought the answer is simple.

IF the BBT is correct, or near enough, then we were IN the BB when it started therefore could not see it as if outside.

Nigel

[Tomjo59]

That's a mind blowing thought. Something with no beginning or end! A universe that has been in existence for ever.

Indeed, almost as difficult to imagine as all the matter in the universe being concentrated into a singularity.

There is a paradox here, of course - we are told that at the Big Bang (and in black holes too, for that matter), all the laws of physics break down, and cannot be used to describe them, yet the laws of physics are all we have to work with! Unless you are religious, of course.

[luna]

The taboo word 'outside'.

There is no outside as regards the Universe

[Zakalwe]

Indeed, almost as difficult to imagine as all the matter in the universe being concentrated into a singularity.

There is a paradox here, of course - we are told that at the Big Bang (and in black holes too, for that matter), all the laws of physics break down, and cannot be used to describe them, yet the laws of physics are all we have to work with!

Thats because our understanding of physics is very incomplete. The Standard Model has worked well so far, and with the discovery of the Higgs Boson we have completed the first part. There will be (it is hoped) a whole raft of new physics to be grappled with as we ramp up the energy of our colliders. However, even with the LHC upgrades, the energy levels that we can currently attain are a small fraction of the energy needed to explore the conditions after the BB.

[jambouk]

Yes, the "squeezing" of all matter into a "compact entity" is one thing I find impossible to get my head around.

I think the inability of "experts" to summarise the proposed concepts in terms us lay people can understand proves how poorly understood it is and how much uncertainty must remain.

James

[Zakalwe]

Yes, the "squeezing" of all matter into a "compact entity" is one thing I find impossible to get my head around.

I think the inability of "experts" to summarise the proposed concepts in terms us lay people can understand proves how poorly understood it is and how much uncertainty must remain.

James

Not so.

Many things are inherently complicated and demand a certain level of knowledge to understand. It is an unfair assumption to make, to claim that unless something is explicable to all and sundry that it is false. Many concepts require that the hard hours are put in in order to bring one's comprehension to a level where the concept can then be understood. It is not a failing of the concept, or the mechanism that describes it, that people who do not have the capability to understand cannot understand it.

Not everything can be explained in laymans terms. That doesn't mean that they are incorrect (or indeed correct!), nor does it mean that those who do understand such things are charlatans.

[D4N]

It is a little easier to fathom when you remember that matter as we know it formed after the Big Bang. What was it before then? There may have been no energy as we know it either. It becomes a lot easier to fit everything into a singularity if the things you are packing in there do not have to comply with the laws of physics as we know them. Once again this is just hypothesising and when we have so few facts available many different hypothesis can be made to fit them.

It is a shame that we may not find the answers any time soon if ever.

TSED70Q, iOptron Smart EQ pro, ASI-120MM, Finepix S5 pro.