 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / October 2006Prior to Big Bang
I don't think it will be long before we are able to see the Big Bang. At least it is theoretically possible. My question is ... Will we, at least theoretically, see before the Big Bang? What do you think we will observe? Thanks in advance. Cordially, west > I don't think it will be long before we are able to see the Big Bang. At > least it is theoretically possible. My question is ... Will we, at least > theoretically, see before the Big Bang? What do you think we will observe? > Thanks in advance. It is unlikely that we shall ever "see" the universe at the moment of the Big Bang, as it was entirely opaque to radiation prior to the matter-light decoupling era (the Cosmic Microwave Background is a relic of this era, being the radiation that first escaped from its "confinement" at that time). Neutrinos probably decoupled prior to light, so we may get somewhat closer by detecting the Cosmic Neutrino Background (CNB), but not all the way back to the first instant. As to seeing back further than the initial event, you'll need to come up with a whole new theory that decouples time from space; both space and time were supposedly created at the first instant, so there's no way to talk meaningfully of what was happening "before". >I don't think it will be long before we are able to see the Big Bang. At > least it is theoretically possible. My question is ... Will we, at least > theoretically, see before the Big Bang? What do you think we will observe? > Thanks in advance. I don't think we are going to see the Big Bang unless time gets compressed between us and where it was, somehow. This is because the light from the Big Bang is likely far beyond the universe by now. If time gets compressed, though, maybe we will see the Big Bang, soon. As to how it gets compressed...it would be by whatever means that we are seeing galaxies that existed just before the Big Bang...if in fact we are. >I don't think it will be long before we are able to see the Big Bang. At > least it is theoretically possible. My question is ... Will we, at least [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Cordially, > west If time compression happens, and we do in fact see the Big Bang, I see no reason at all why would not be able to see things before the Big Bang. Time is linear, after all. What will we see? I like you can hardly wait. >I don't think it will be long before we are able to see the Big Bang. At > least it is theoretically possible. My question is ... Will we, at least > theoretically, see before the Big Bang? What do you think we will observe? > Thanks in advance. would it not be so ,that light goes in a big curv? then it would mean ,that as we look further and further back in time, that we would eventually see our own galaxy,yes?? IOW ,i don't think we will ever see the BB,not as long as we can perceive only 3 dimensions, and that is the case so far, but don't despair, we can still perceive the remnant of the BB,the so called,background radiation,about 3 kelvin > Cordially, > west > >I don't think it will be long before we are able to see the Big Bang. At > > least it is theoretically possible. My question is ... Will we, at least [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > then it would mean ,that as we look further and further back in time, > that we would eventually see our own galaxy,yes?? The longer light travels the more it is red shifted due to the expansion of the universe. Even if the topology of the universe turns out to be closed, light would never be able to make the circuit; it would be shifted to undetectability by the time it reached our cosmic horizon. Another way to put this is that the distant parts of the universe, everything lying outside our cosmic horizon, is moving away from us at greater than the speed of light. > IOW ,i don't think we will ever see the BB,not as long as we can perceive > only 3 dimensions, > and that is the case so far, > > but don't despair, we can still perceive the remnant of the BB,the so > called,background radiation,about 3 kelvin >> >I don't think it will be long before we are able to see the Big Bang. At >> > least it is theoretically possible. My question is ... Will we, at [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > outside our cosmic horizon, is moving away from us > at greater than the speed of light. yes ,that is true, ofcourse , that part of the universe which is leaving us faster than the c , we can not see and never will, but where is the prove,that such a part of the universe exists, where it the prove,that something goes away from us faster than c? we assume that! and where is the proof,that light (what left us) is undetectable before it makes its round,and comes back to us. >> IOW ,i don't think we will ever see the BB,not as long as we can perceive >> only 3 dimensions, >> and that is the case so far, >> >> but don't despair, we can still perceive the remnant of the BB,the so >> called,background radiation,about 3 kelvin > >> >I don't think it will be long before we are able to see the Big Bang. At > >> > least it is theoretically possible. My question is ... Will we, at [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > and where is the proof,that light (what left us) is undetectable before it > makes its round,and comes back to us. The universe was much denser and hotter in the past, and the conclusion is that it is expanding. Given the measured rate of expansion (Hubble constant) we know that there is a cosmic horizon. Also, if the universe was not expanding, we would still be receiving light at the "temperature" of the BB from regions far away. We don't. >> >> >I don't think it will be long before we are able to see the Big Bang. > At [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > still be receiving light at the "temperature" of > the BB from regions far away. We don't. that all is logical, but, the BB started in a point here onder my finger on my keyboard,but also under yours and for that matter at the other end of the universe , so there is no centre,or everywhere is the centre,for us the cosmic horizon is in an other place than for those at the other end of the universe, what is going on? > that all is logical, > but, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for those at the other end of the universe, > what is going on? Every observer has his own cosmic horizon. An observer located halfway to our cosmic horizon can see further past it (by the distance between us and him). It's much like the Earth's horizon, where it's always located at the same distance from a given observer. >> that all is logical, >> but, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > much like the Earth's horizon, where it's always > located at the same distance from a given observer. yes, but ,when i travel the distance to our cosmic horizon,then the horizon is just that distance further away ,etc.etc. sooner or later I must come to the end,well,that is,if the universe is not infinite , therefore ,would it not be acceptable to say, the universe is infinite in 3 dimensions and finite in 4 dimension?, just the same as the earth is infinite in 2 and finite in 3, but the problem is ,we can never be sure that there are 4 spatial dimensions,because we cannot perceive the 4e. what you think about that? and what are the consequenses then for the nowadays accepted theory? I cannot quite oversee this, marten > >> that all is logical, > >> but, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > nowadays accepted theory? > I cannot quite oversee this, An observer can *never* travel as far as his cosmic horizon, since the horizon is where space is moving away from him at the speed of light. So we're all stuck here in our little cosmic puddle... It is, of course, theoretically possible to detect the curvature of space by, for example, measuring the sum of the angles of a large triangle. http://universe.sonoma.edu/activities/geometry.html >> >> that all is logical, >> >> but, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > away from him at the speed of light. So we're all > stuck here in our little cosmic puddle... offcourse, but that does'nt change it a bit, whether the universe is expanding or not(offcourse it is expanding).or we can get there or not, there must be a borderline somewhere at the end of our universe,, marten > It is, of course, theoretically possible to detect the > curvature of space by, for example, measuring the > sum of the angles of a large triangle. > > http://universe.sonoma.edu/activities/geometry.html > > An observer can *never* travel as far as his cosmic > > horizon, since the horizon is where space is moving [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > can get there or not, there must be a borderline somewhere at the end of > our universe,, Where's the border of the surface of a sphere? There's no direction that you can point to in our universe that's normal ("outward") to space, just as there's no direction on the surface of the sphere that's outward (or inward). In order to do that, you'd have to have access to another dimension. >> > An observer can *never* travel as far as his cosmic >> > horizon, since the horizon is where space is moving [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Where's the border of the surface of a sphere? exactly, in 2 dimension there is not ,but in 3 dimension there is,namely up, now ,as I said before ,we apply the same from 3 to 4 spatials dimensions,(though we cannot perceive the 4e), what do we have then? how can we understand it then , what is going on in reality, hope you reply marten > There's no direction that you can point to in our universe > that's normal ("outward") to space, just as there's > no direction on the surface of the sphere that's > outward (or inward). In order to do that, you'd > have to have access to another dimension. > exactly, > in 2 dimension there is not ,but in 3 dimension there is,namely up, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what is going on in reality, > hope you reply Right. So there's no edge in our universe, and there is no boundary that you can travel to in order to "see" what's beyond. Matter isn't flying outward into some void from the big bang; space is expanding. >> exactly, >> in 2 dimension there is not ,but in 3 dimension there is,namely up, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Matter isn't flying outward into some void > from the big bang; space is expanding. but when it is not expanding in a sort of void, can we say then, that it is expanding in the 4e dimension? though we can not possibly imagine such a something > >> exactly, > >> in 2 dimension there is not ,but in 3 dimension there is,namely up, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > can we say then, that it is expanding in the 4e dimension? > though we can not possibly imagine such a something We can say what we want depending upon the model we choose to use to describe it. As far as I know, the mathematics of General Relativity, which describes curved spacetime, does not invoke a 4th spacial dimension. >> >> exactly, >> >> in 2 dimension there is not ,but in 3 dimension there is,namely up, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > describes curved spacetime, does not invoke a 4th > spacial dimension. true, >> exactly, >> in 2 dimension there is not ,but in 3 dimension there is,namely up, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Matter isn't flying outward into some void > from the big bang; space is expanding. lets say we can only perceive 2 dimensions, but one way or the other we find out that our lenght get longer and our width get wider, then we might consider that our flat world is expanding, but we can't figure out in what, but now,because we can perceive 3 dimensions we know and understand,that when the surface of a sphere gets larger, it must expand in the 3e dimension, is the same not going on with the 3e and the 4e? if there is a 4e West Since for 300000years after BB there was just great heat(photons and we can measure this today having weakened to 3K we are in this spacetime immersed in this glow. Tricky,but reality Bert > West Since for 300000years after BB there was just great heat(photons > and we can measure this today having weakened to 3K we are in this > spacetime immersed in this glow. Tricky,but reality Bert yes, and as we are just in the centre of this universe,. but then ,so is everything in this universe 'Lo west -- The light that was generated by the Big Bang is the only light by which we could see the Big Bang. And that light is long past us. All we can see now is what i call "remnant light". It is all that's left of the Big Bang. Think of it this way... A photon from the Sun leaves its surface and takes an eight-minute ride toward Earth. But it doesn't hit your eye. It keeps going. On past the Earth, past Mars, on out into the Galaxy and the Universe. You will never get another chance to see that photon. And in the same way, we will never get another chance to see the light from the Big Bang. happy days and... starry starry nights!  SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org >I don't think it will be long before we are able to see the Big Bang. At > least it is theoretically possible. My question is ... Will we, at least [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Cordially, > west Painius That is the way I see it. Fact is its new stars(galaxies that started to shine at a distance of 5 billion LY away that their light is coming our way now.If mankind does not see the light,there is no need of light Nature created light to evolve eyes. With the brain and eyes humankind gives the universe a way to see itself Bert > Painius That is the way I see it. Fact is its new stars(galaxies that > started to shine at a distance of 5 billion LY away that their light is > coming our way now.If mankind does not see the light,there is no need of > light Nature created light to evolve eyes. With the brain and eyes > humankind gives the universe a way to see itself Bert Consider, Bert, that your idea just might be only our way of feeling "needed" by the Universe. I'm glad you included "brain" with "eyes". Because it's the brain and mind that "interpret" what we see. And another aspect would be that, as the brain evolves, it becomes intelligent enough to create and construct instruments that can sense vibrations other than just light. With intelligent beings, the Universe can "see" itself in the infrared, microwave, ultraviolet and other wavelengths. Questions that arise in my mind are "Why does the Universe want or need to see itself?" and "Why would the Universe just want to see itself from one vantage point? (our planet Earth)? So your premise... that the Universe is a living thing and requires beings like us to sense itself... sounds to me like a good argument for there being intelligent life all over the Universe! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org Painius Intelligent life is in every region of our universe. Trillions of stars gives this thinking reality. Our Sun is like 100s of billions ofstars just like it in the universe. Even Andromeda having such a greater number of stars has a better probability for intelligent life than the Milky Way reality is our Milky Way galaxy takes up only a speck of space. Best to realize the light we see in this spacetime left Andromeda 2 million years ago,and that was the beginning of the Pleitocene epoch. (when humankind was about as brainy as the great apes.) Radio waves will show that our universe is 22 billion years young Bert > Painius Intelligent life is in every region of our universe. Trillions > of stars gives this thinking reality. Our Sun is like 100s of billions [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > apes.) Radio waves will show that our universe is 22 billion years > young Bert I am in agreement with you, Bert. The two things we must remember are... 1) All forms of life in other solar systems and galaxies that are less than, equal to, or even just a bit greater than our level of advancement are naturally undetectable by us at our present level of achievement, and 2) Those forms of life that greatly exceed our level of advancement will not allow us to detect them until we can earn their respect. This is why the paradox of our not being able to detect life in a Universe that must be teeming with life continues. If we are ever to get off this planet and explore the sky first-hand, we will have to figure out just what it takes to become respectable... and then do it! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org > 'Lo west -- > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Cordially, > > west Paine, Imagine another region of space rushing away from us at FTL speed at the time of the Big Bang. It gets so far away from us so fast, that it takes 14 billion years for the Big Bang glow of that region to reach us. And by the time it does get here, it has red shifted down the the radio waves we now call the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. That is how we can possibly still "see" the light from the Big Bang. Double-A > > 'Lo west -- > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Double-A Have you tried 3-D glasses? HJ >> 'Lo west -- >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Double-A This is true, and i think the OP was addressing the misnomer that, since we can see farther and farther away, and therefore, farther and farther back in time, we will someday actually be able to see (with our eyes) the Big Bang event. As you know, that ain't gonna happen. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org West We are feeling(seeing) the BB in its micro wave radiation that we in this space time are immersed in. What else is new? Bert |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.