EPTSay when 13.7 billion years ago when the expansion from the Big Bang started, or was happening. What the hell was it expanding through/into?
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/CMB_Timeline75.jpg/600px-CMB_Timeline75.jpg)
If the Universe is expanding
| Blogs > {CC}StealthBlue |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Say when 13.7 billion years ago when the expansion from the Big Bang started, or was happening. What the hell was it expanding through/into? | ||
|
closed
Vatican City State491 Posts
| ||
|
DeathByMonkeys
United States742 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
it's just stretching out, changing shape at least there is no reason to believe anything more than that (i think) | ||
|
Ichigo1234551
United States649 Posts
The thing is our brain needs to imagine the 16 dimensions. Since we only experience the 3rd dimension, we think in the 4th dimension. In order to get to higher dimension, we need to use drugs to open our brain up. I would suggest taking a large amount of weed to understand parallel universe. One time I ate brownie and got so high. I was between two universe. Two of my conscious mind were connected into one. At first I was jumping from one mind into another but both of my minds joined into one. Also if you think about how our brain creates reality. What if our brain is what keeping us in this universe. If we were to released from our brain could travel into other universe with our consciousness. I'm planning to study more about physics and possibly find a way to travel between universes. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
| ||
|
JoeMcDoug
United States10 Posts
| ||
|
BookTwo
1985 Posts
| ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21242 Posts
Not a simple question :[ | ||
|
sanji_
United States16 Posts
On August 28 2009 17:49 BookTwo wrote: the big bang is a theory. And your lack of understanding of what a scientific theory means is aggravating. http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4414/scimethrn6.png | ||
|
BookTwo
1985 Posts
Theory: A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. Fact: Is a reality, truth Information that has been objectively verified. a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts" | ||
|
betaben
681 Posts
| ||
|
betaben
681 Posts
On August 28 2009 18:00 BookTwo wrote: it is still a theory. Theory: A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. Fact: Is a reality, truth Information that has been objectively verified. a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts" can you tell us about the verification process that turns a theory into a fact? | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
| ||
|
bN`
Slovenia504 Posts
However, there are some specualtions that space-time itself expands faster than light travels, but I'm not up to speed on those views. | ||
|
betaben
681 Posts
On August 28 2009 18:20 bN` wrote: The big bang theory assumes that the big bang is the moment when the fabric of space-time itself began, therefore it is pointless to debate what the universe is expanding into. However, there are some specualtions that space-time itself expands faster than light travels, but I'm not up to speed on those views. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 this is a bit informative on the faster than light thing. I think that it is true that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light now - it's just that it is outside of our horizon, so we are not causally connected. which is ok. however, because there are large differences in distance and time for signals to get to us, and the different stretching in tat period, it means we can see areas now that were moving away from us faster than the speed of light at the moment the light was released towards us (i.e. a long time ago). I think. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
| ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
Also, unless you really put a lot of time into it all you will acquire is false, lacking or misinterpreted information. | ||
|
Mah Buckit!
Finland474 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + .my space hasn´t changed a bit. | ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
On August 28 2009 17:49 BookTwo wrote: the big bang is a theory. Fool spotted. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
SchOOl_VicTIm
Greece2394 Posts
| ||
|
BookTwo
1985 Posts
Where? | ||
|
georgir
Bulgaria253 Posts
On August 28 2009 19:34 CharlieMurphy wrote: put a bunch of dots on a deflated balloon, blow it up. that is your explanation. that's really the simplest and best explanation i think, it is surprising that it came so late in the thread. it needs some more details though. in that balloon analogy, the universe - or space - is just the surface of the balloon. so that's how we would explain it if the universe was two-dimensional. for our three-dimensional universe we could say that it expands like the surface of a 4-dimensional "balloon" | ||
CaucasianAsian
Korea (South)11570 Posts
On August 28 2009 19:34 CharlieMurphy wrote: put a bunch of dots on a deflated balloon, blow it up. that is your explanation. what happens when it pops? | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
| ||
|
thoraxe
United States1449 Posts
On August 28 2009 17:54 sanji_ wrote: And your lack of understanding of what a scientific theory means is aggravating. http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4414/scimethrn6.png and your lack of understanding of his allusion is aggravating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory On August 28 2009 17:40 Valentine wrote: the big bang was an inside job ROFL, I hope you aren't referring to some kind of porn movie. | ||
|
Track
United States217 Posts
On August 28 2009 18:00 BookTwo wrote: it is still a theory. Theory: A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. Fact: Is a reality, truth Information that has been objectively verified. a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts" I love it when people take a literal meaning of a word and think it is applied that way in every single instance, especially where science is concerned. Are you familiar with Newton's Theory of Gravitation? Or Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Or the Continental Drift Theory? Or Copernicus' Theory of Heliocentricity? Do you think all of these are not realities and truths? Theory in science only indicates uncertainty in the sense that any experiment could conceivably reverse it, meaning science is NEVER set in stone, but always malleable and open to change given a dramatic discovery. But it's not very likely, is it? Which is the point. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6633 Posts
| ||
|
Adeny
Norway1233 Posts
| ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On August 28 2009 17:25 closed wrote: What if time = the same variable as the expansion of the universe? I always wondered that In cosmology, usually people use the scale factor (a) instead of time to describe when stuff is happening. So a=1 for the present universe, and goes down as you go back in time towards 0. It makes things a lot easier since you can easily change from a to redshift, or into expansion rate which is more useful than actual time. Also in the inflation period the universe was expanding WAY faster than the speed of light, so parts of it that were in contact before inflation suddenly couldn't see each other. As the expansion slowed down they started drifting back into contact but it explains the large scale patterns in the universe. As for where it's expanding into.. yeah.. it's like the balloon. | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On August 29 2009 01:02 Adeny wrote: You're just gonna have to scout that, lay mines on all available expo if you are terran, plant some zerglings there if you are zerg etc. Make sure you also keep track of any island expansions. If Big Bang's over-expanding, cut workers and go for an all-in attack, or distract him with a drop while you send a small task-force to take out the expansion. lol | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On August 28 2009 17:36 travis wrote: it's not expanding into anything it's just stretching out, changing shape at least there is no reason to believe anything more than that (i think) It's perfectly reasonable to ask the question in what the universe is expanding in. Surely there can't be just nothing outside our universe. I think there might be several universes, why wouldn't there? Don't say that's impossible lol...yeah like so much stuff we see in space is likely and possible. We are living in the midst of a wonder of epic proportions people. We don't even know what the fuck the universe is, why it is, where it is and what it is in. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On August 29 2009 01:50 Foucault wrote: It's perfectly reasonable to ask the question in what the universe is expanding in. Surely there can't be just nothing outside our universe. I think there might be several universes, why wouldn't there? Don't say that's impossible lol...yeah like so much stuff we see in space is likely and possible. We are living in the midst of a wonder of epic proportions people. We don't even know what the fuck the universe is, why it is, where it is and what it is in. Probably cause that's not really the definition of a universe. Uni... Meaning ONE. + Show Spoiler + I know there's theories about 'parallel universes' or whatever, but if I understand correctly, those have nothing to do with physical distances. | ||
|
closed
Vatican City State491 Posts
On August 29 2009 01:05 starfries wrote: In cosmology, usually people use the scale factor (a) instead of time to describe when stuff is happening. So a=1 for the present universe, and goes down as you go back in time towards 0. It makes things a lot easier since you can easily change from a to redshift, or into expansion rate which is more useful than actual time. Also in the inflation period the universe was expanding WAY faster than the speed of light, so parts of it that were in contact before inflation suddenly couldn't see each other. As the expansion slowed down they started drifting back into contact but it explains the large scale patterns in the universe. As for where it's expanding into.. yeah.. it's like the balloon. But what if "time" = the scale factor? E.g. 1 second = "1^150 more stretching"? Although it wouldnt make much sense if the strech wasnt linear as you described. Is it decreasing though? Or increasing - like U pattern. Personally I have this theory that you cannot go back in time because: a) time = stretching of the universe b) the same atom cannot be at the same spot at the same time (ok, they talk about the quantum bubbles, but these are not the same atoms) - think of it as a giant database On August 28 2009 19:10 spinesheath wrote: Unless you studied physics you shouldn't even bother about where the universe is going. Unless you are a progamer dont read a broodwar related forum. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
rinse and repeat. | ||
|
Sky
Jordan812 Posts
On August 28 2009 19:10 spinesheath wrote: Unless you studied physics you shouldn't even bother about where the universe is going. You are not going to live long enough to notice any effects the expansion of the universe might have. Also, unless you really put a lot of time into it all you will acquire is false, lacking or misinterpreted information. I don't understand this. Are you discouraging people to define this stuff because they don't have the background knowledge of physics, or are implying that it's a waste of time to even think about it? Considering the edge won't be seen without a viable way to get there, I think it's pretty arrogant to tell others to drop discussion if they haven't had the background. This especially considering how dynamic particle physics has been in the past 200 years. + Show Spoiler + Maybe I just got the wrong impression from your paragraph. If so, I apologize! Your still a neat person though. | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On August 29 2009 02:49 Chef wrote: Personally, I believe that from some angle, at some time, the universe is going to be an uncanny likeness of my face. Probably cause that's not really the definition of a universe. Uni... Meaning ONE. + Show Spoiler + I know there's theories about 'parallel universes' or whatever, but if I understand correctly, those have nothing to do with physical distances. Good point. I actually never thought about the "uni" part being one in the word universe lol | ||
|
Xe(-_-)Ro
Canada69 Posts
On August 28 2009 18:18 betaben wrote: can you tell us about the verification process that turns a theory into a fact? We're listening, or reading rather, BookTwo  | ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
God godgodgod haha, I ruined the thread! | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
BanZu
United States3329 Posts
lololol | ||
|
Thratur
Canada917 Posts
That's what I think. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 28 2009 22:49 thoraxe wrote: and your lack of understanding of his allusion is aggravating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory Given how their continued interaction has panned out, I would guess the allusion was unintentional. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On August 29 2009 04:44 mahnini wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3uNrI8tE oh wow, so that would mean that every black hole in our galaxy/universe is possibly a link to another universe. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17920 Posts
"cosmic dust(or something)" just appeared out of nothing and exploded. like how does that even make any fucking sense | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On August 29 2009 05:33 arb wrote: I dont get how the big bang is even accepted. like does no one miss the giant flaw that "cosmic dust(or something)" just appeared out of nothing and exploded. like how does that even make any fucking sense well the way I understand the theory (maybe not the universally accepted version) is that it's an ongoing cycle. We expand then collapse over and over and it is infinite (it obviously takes huge amounts of time for even 1 cycle though). So it always was and always will be, just in different forms. But anyways, when compared with other accepted theories (creationism for example) they have huge fucking flaws in them as well. Where did god come from? Who created him ? It's the same shit, really. Nothing is 100% fact, you just gotta take some of it on faith. PS- if you watch the above video, this is an even better theory imo, he suggest that blackholes perhaps suck in tons of crap and eventually just explode into 'white holes' on the other side creating a whole new universe, and this cycle is ongoing as well. So in lamen's terms its mini big bangs going off billions and trillions of times from blackholes creating new universes all the time. | ||
|
coltrane
Chile988 Posts
On August 29 2009 05:33 arb wrote: I dont get how the big bang is even accepted. like does no one miss the giant flaw that "cosmic dust(or something)" just appeared out of nothing and exploded. like how does that even make any fucking sense I believe that we are discussing about the universe stretching/expanding, so your post is out of place, nobodie ever said that before big bang nothing existed. The theory is relative to the universe evolution, not to the causes. We just cant know, we cant messure time or distance, two concepts that are part of the universe itself and the base for physics aswell. Before the bigbang it cant be physics as we know them, so we cant answer that. Go and ask your favorite priest. I just read the whole thread and have to say many things here are in fact the accepted big bang theory, but i want to make a few observations: I am most into chaotic inflation theory of the multiverse, that is just an extended system of big bangs not lynked by causality. This is exactly many parallel universes that could or could not have any space/time or energy related situation. When we talk about parallel universe we need to focus them as physic realities or then we wouldnt talk about them while doing physics. The quantic particles sometimes just arent where they are supposed to be, and therefore the distance (position) doesnt just relate to time, its actually the result of a chaotic equation. Is more accurate talking of something that is probably there than something that is actually there. This could only be truth if we think that space/time is in fact discrete. In the thing related to light speed, it is a natural limit to any information traveling, of course that is inside our universe. so the furthest things in the universe to the earth are going away exactly at this speed. Anything that moves faster is in fact outside the universe rules. The thing is that here we are talking about relative speeds (like always, in physics everything is about delta when modeling shits) Finally each universe has a set of rules that put them in a markovian space. This is we just need to look where we are now to know the evolution, the past will be always a mistery. | ||
|
coltrane
Chile988 Posts
On August 29 2009 07:18 CharlieMurphy wrote: well the way I understand the theory (maybe not the universally accepted version) is that it's an ongoing cycle. We expand then collapse over and over and it is infinite (it obviously takes huge amounts of time for even 1 cycle though). So it always was and always will be, just in different forms. But anyways, when compared with other accepted theories (creationism for example) they have huge fucking flaws in them as well. Where did god come from? Who created him ? It's the same shit, really. Nothing is 100% fact, you just gotta take some of it on faith. Two things: The big bang theory actually only descrives the expanding part. The colapsing part are less accepted interpretations, is a nice idea to think that things that have a beginning should have an end, but we cant know that for now. Cosmic time is so out of our scale. I just decided not to write was i wanted to write, because as i said before i think this thread is not for that. Can we keep it on physics? oh, yes, and third... is 100% fact that universe is expanding. the light as mechanic wave (it is both, right? mechanic and electromagnetic, thats einstein) is succeptible to doppler effect, that means that the color of a star deppends lineally on its speed, and can be proved that further stars moves faster than closer stars. Lynking this two facts you have only one possible explanation, that the space between any two objects in the space growths constantly. Thats the base. | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On August 29 2009 03:05 closed wrote: + Show Spoiler + On August 29 2009 01:05 starfries wrote: In cosmology, usually people use the scale factor (a) instead of time to describe when stuff is happening. So a=1 for the present universe, and goes down as you go back in time towards 0. It makes things a lot easier since you can easily change from a to redshift, or into expansion rate which is more useful than actual time. Also in the inflation period the universe was expanding WAY faster than the speed of light, so parts of it that were in contact before inflation suddenly couldn't see each other. As the expansion slowed down they started drifting back into contact but it explains the large scale patterns in the universe As for where it's expanding into.. yeah.. it's like the balloon. But what if "time" = the scale factor? E.g. 1 second = "1^150 more stretching"? Although it wouldnt make much sense if the strech wasnt linear as you described. Is it decreasing though? Or increasing - like U pattern. Personally I have this theory that you cannot go back in time because: a) time = stretching of the universe b) the same atom cannot be at the same spot at the same time (ok, they talk about the quantum bubbles, but these are not the same atoms) - think of it as a giant database There's actually a theory that the direction of time is tied to the expansion of the universe. So when the universe contracts, time actually reverses and everything starts going backwards. But I don't think it's popular, since there are processes that are time-dependent that aren't tied to expansion. If time went faster when the universe was expanding quickly, everything else would move faster as well so it would cancel out. The actual equation relating time to the expansion rate is pretty complicated, and depends on whether the universe is dominated by radiation, dark and regular matter, or dark energy (one interesting thing about cosmology is that the "standard" theories are based on the existence of dark matter and dark energy, which have never been detected and no one knows what the hell they are). On August 29 2009 03:05 closed wrote: Unless you are a progamer dont read a broodwar related forum. It's a little more like saying if you don't play brood war don't read a brood war related forum. But I'm definitely not saying that, people can take an interest in whatever they want. It's just going to be really confusing, like trying to understand builds without having played starcraft. | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On August 29 2009 07:19 coltrane wrote: In the thing related to light speed, it is a natural limit to any information traveling, of course that is inside our universe. so the furthest things in the universe to the earth are going away exactly at this speed. Anything that moves faster is in fact outside the universe rules. The thing is that here we are talking about relative speeds (like always, in physics everything is about delta when modeling shits) There COULD be things outside the horizon (the line where stuff is traveling away at the speed of light so we can't see it) but we wouldn't ever be able to know, unless the expansion of the universe changed. But for our universe none of these things really apply since the limit for how far we can see is the cosmic microwave background (basically the glow from right after the big bang) So in theory if we had a telescope that could see through all the stuff in the way we could see the big bang happening. On August 29 2009 07:19 coltrane wrote: Finally each universe has a set of rules that put them in a markovian space. This is we just need to look where we are now to know the evolution, the past will be always a mistery. what's a markovian space? I'm actually really curious. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On August 28 2009 17:37 Ichigo1234551 wrote: You cant think of the expansion in 3 dimensional. The universe is actually expanding outward in 16 dimensions. The end of time and beginning of time is actually going in the same direction as it expanding. When you move from one place to another, its actually the 15th dimension that is moving with you. If we look at the 2 slits experiment, there are actually 12 explanation for it. One of the explanation is that there parallel universe and maybe infinity of universe if you see it in dimension 7. In order to understand the larger picture we need to understand the fundamental parts of the universe. Super string theory explains the universe in only 10 dimensions. You need to get to 16 dimensions. The thing is our brain needs to imagine the 16 dimensions. Since we only experience the 3rd dimension, we think in the 4th dimension. In order to get to higher dimension, we need to use drugs to open our brain up. I would suggest taking a large amount of weed to understand parallel universe. One time I ate brownie and got so high. I was between two universe. Two of my conscious mind were connected into one. At first I was jumping from one mind into another but both of my minds joined into one. Also if you think about how our brain creates reality. What if our brain is what keeping us in this universe. If we were to released from our brain could travel into other universe with our consciousness. I'm planning to study more about physics and possibly find a way to travel between universes. lol. I love this post. About the most interesting troll I've read so far. | ||
|
coltrane
Chile988 Posts
Is when you model a state for something and add the generation variable and all that you need to know the next generation state is the actual generation state. In a simple way think in any square matrix and start multipling by itself. Not like a potence, actually by itself on any generation. Of course a matrix isnt either complex or interesting. Conway's game of life is a good example. The thing is you cant really go backwards, because many different states could bring you to the same state, like we cant really know what is before the big bang. | ||
|
madnessman
United States1581 Posts
On August 29 2009 16:14 Tyraz wrote: lol. I love this post. About the most interesting troll I've read so far. where did the 16 dimensions come from? if you listen to michio kaku there might be 11 but he never mentions anything over 11... | ||
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24615 Posts
On August 29 2009 07:18 CharlieMurphy wrote: well the way I understand the theory (maybe not the universally accepted version) is that it's an ongoing cycle. We expand then collapse over and over and it is infinite (it obviously takes huge amounts of time for even 1 cycle though). So it always was and always will be, just in different forms. Up until a decade or two ago this was a very serious contender... but more recently it's been demonstrated to be highly unlikely. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11548 Posts
| ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
You. Thanks for copy & pasting the difference between a law and a theory. I'm sure that clears up everyone's misunderstanding... Or, perhaps you could realize that most people here have graduated elementary school and you probably don't have to spout inane elementary bullshit. Being dismissive of the big bang theory is generally harmful to cosmology and other relevant fields. Scientists may not be absolutely correct in all aspects of the big bang. Historically, scientists learn the best they can in in their given environment. There will never be a point when we know everything. As we know it, the big bang is the best possible catalyst for the creation of our known universe. Scientists are not prophets, they are never infallible or completely correct. That doesn't mean that the collective understanding of the universe that mankind has compiled since we first started writing shit down is worthless. On August 29 2009 04:47 BanZu wrote: Big bang, right... lololol Someone laughing at the big bang theory lololol. I suggest you pick up a science book kid. Ignorance is annoying sometimes. Edit: The best evidence to support the big bang probably comes from the WMAP satellite, tasked with photographing the radiation left over from an alleged big bang explosion. It can account for some of the more peculiar aspects of the universe, particularly its large scale homogeneity. Educate yourselves. | ||
|
kekekekyle
Canada32 Posts
| ||
|
food
United States1951 Posts
On September 01 2009 21:35 keV. wrote: You. Thanks for copy & pasting the difference between a law and a theory. I'm sure that clears up everyone's misunderstanding... Or, perhaps you could realize that most people here have graduated elementary school and you probably don't have to spout inane elementary bullshit. Being dismissive of the big bang theory is generally harmful to cosmology and other relevant fields. Scientists may not be absolutely correct in all aspects of the big bang. Historically, scientists learn the best they can in in their given environment. There will never be a point when we know everything. As we know it, the big bang is the best possible catalyst for the creation of our known universe. Scientists are not prophets, they are never infallible or completely correct. That doesn't mean that the collective understanding of the universe that mankind has compiled since we first started writing shit down is worthless. Someone laughing at the big bang theory lololol. I suggest you pick up a science book kid. Ignorance is annoying sometimes. Edit: The best evidence to support the big bang probably comes from the WMAP satellite, tasked with photographing the radiation left over from an alleged big bang explosion. It can account for some of the more peculiar aspects of the universe, particularly its large scale homogeneity. Educate yourselves. | ||
| ||
