ChatterBank3 mins ago
Big Bang
Now that we are able to analyse the movements of the galaxies has anyone ever plotted their movements and extrapolated back to determine where in space the big bang occurred?
If so what is there now?
If so what is there now?
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oldboy913. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well Oldboy, You and I have waited long enough for an answer to your guestion so I'll attempt to get the ball rolling with my own.
A location in space is defined in relation to other points in space. Since all the points we now observe in space as well as space itself did not exist in any known realm prior to the big bang, through which all that we now observe was formed, there is no one location within the universe unique to the point of origin of the big bang. We, as well as other points in space, are uniformly surrounded by the remnants of the big bang which produced the universe we now observe.
Welcome to answerbank!
A location in space is defined in relation to other points in space. Since all the points we now observe in space as well as space itself did not exist in any known realm prior to the big bang, through which all that we now observe was formed, there is no one location within the universe unique to the point of origin of the big bang. We, as well as other points in space, are uniformly surrounded by the remnants of the big bang which produced the universe we now observe.
Welcome to answerbank!
Hi mibn2cweus thanks for your input.
Slow up a little please. Is there an answer to my original question?
What evidence is there that there was nothing before the BB?
What evidence is there that there was only one bang?
Your comment �there is no one location�, are you saying that extrapolation produces mixed results?
We are surrounded, but �uniformly�
Slow up a little please. Is there an answer to my original question?
What evidence is there that there was nothing before the BB?
What evidence is there that there was only one bang?
Your comment �there is no one location�, are you saying that extrapolation produces mixed results?
We are surrounded, but �uniformly�
I'm encouraged that your asking for proof and not just taking my word for it but unfortunately, all I can offer at the moment is an attempt at an explanation:
Before people knew better they might have imagined the Earth to be a flat surface, possibly of a limited size so that if you traveled far enough in a given direction you would come to the edge. We now know that the Earth is spherical and so if you travel a given direction long enough you come around to the point you started. Now if we take this one step further and imagine that you can travel up and down just as easily and in so doing likewise come around to the place you started . . . this basically represents the shape of space, a domain without center or edge. Perhaps what makes this so hard to comprehend is that we are so accustomed to moving about on a relatively flat surface which is limited mostly to two dimensions, forward/backward and left/right with access to vertical motion restricted to hills and valleys with the force of gravity holding us to the surface.
Now then we get to the size of space. The size of our universe is not limited to what we can see. We are restricted from directly observing the full size of the universe by the time it takes light to travel in the 13-14 billion years it has existed. There's no reason to believe it is not much bigger than this and in fact it is evident that it is getting even bigger all the time.
I'll let you chew on that awile and then maybe you'll think of some more questions to ask . . . In the mean time I hope this has helped. Hopefully someone will come along soon to explain the observations that leads us to believe the universe is the way it appears to be . . . or to trash my explanation! Hey, I'm here to learn too!
Before people knew better they might have imagined the Earth to be a flat surface, possibly of a limited size so that if you traveled far enough in a given direction you would come to the edge. We now know that the Earth is spherical and so if you travel a given direction long enough you come around to the point you started. Now if we take this one step further and imagine that you can travel up and down just as easily and in so doing likewise come around to the place you started . . . this basically represents the shape of space, a domain without center or edge. Perhaps what makes this so hard to comprehend is that we are so accustomed to moving about on a relatively flat surface which is limited mostly to two dimensions, forward/backward and left/right with access to vertical motion restricted to hills and valleys with the force of gravity holding us to the surface.
Now then we get to the size of space. The size of our universe is not limited to what we can see. We are restricted from directly observing the full size of the universe by the time it takes light to travel in the 13-14 billion years it has existed. There's no reason to believe it is not much bigger than this and in fact it is evident that it is getting even bigger all the time.
I'll let you chew on that awile and then maybe you'll think of some more questions to ask . . . In the mean time I hope this has helped. Hopefully someone will come along soon to explain the observations that leads us to believe the universe is the way it appears to be . . . or to trash my explanation! Hey, I'm here to learn too!
There is a common misconception that the bib bang was a massive explosion into an already existing space.
Infact space and time first came into existance with the big bang. It is the expansion of space carying with it all the stars and galaxies that we see as the red-shift in the spectra of galaxies that first showed us this.
The usual analogy is of raisins in a loaf of bread, as the bread rises all the raisens are carried along with it.
Obviously then it makes no sense to talk of a specific place where the big bang happened because it happened everywhere.
There are multiple pieces of evidence for the big bang firstly as I mentioned there's the red-shift of galaxies which Hubble discovered. Then a calculation was made about the fact that if the big bang happened we ought to see background noise of a certain type - This is the Cosmic Background radiation that was discoverred accidently in 1963 and it matched precisely with what was predicted.
There are some other ones too but these are the two main ones.
No we come to your question about nothing before - and I'm afraid you're not going to like the answer.
Time doesn't work the way we tend to think it does. It speeds up or slows down depending on things like very high speeds and high gravitational fields - Special and General relativity - we don't normally see this in our everyday life but it's true - in fact satnav systems wouldn't be accurate enough without correcting for it.
There are a number of experimental proofs the gravity probe A satelite probe in 1976 carried an atomic clock and showed time running faster further out of the Earth's gravitational field
Indeed as I said above time itself came into being in the big bang so in one sence the universe has always been here becaues "before" it there was no time.
Infact space and time first came into existance with the big bang. It is the expansion of space carying with it all the stars and galaxies that we see as the red-shift in the spectra of galaxies that first showed us this.
The usual analogy is of raisins in a loaf of bread, as the bread rises all the raisens are carried along with it.
Obviously then it makes no sense to talk of a specific place where the big bang happened because it happened everywhere.
There are multiple pieces of evidence for the big bang firstly as I mentioned there's the red-shift of galaxies which Hubble discovered. Then a calculation was made about the fact that if the big bang happened we ought to see background noise of a certain type - This is the Cosmic Background radiation that was discoverred accidently in 1963 and it matched precisely with what was predicted.
There are some other ones too but these are the two main ones.
No we come to your question about nothing before - and I'm afraid you're not going to like the answer.
Time doesn't work the way we tend to think it does. It speeds up or slows down depending on things like very high speeds and high gravitational fields - Special and General relativity - we don't normally see this in our everyday life but it's true - in fact satnav systems wouldn't be accurate enough without correcting for it.
There are a number of experimental proofs the gravity probe A satelite probe in 1976 carried an atomic clock and showed time running faster further out of the Earth's gravitational field
Indeed as I said above time itself came into being in the big bang so in one sence the universe has always been here becaues "before" it there was no time.
I'm not sure the original question has been answered. Clearly, if everything began from a singularity, then its co-ordinates were established at the moment of creation. Not relative to anything before, just relative to its own creation.
Yes, you can extrapolate as you suggest. The problem is that the answer will always be ... "where you are standing when you make measurements".
This is a simple consequence of Hubble's discoveries: the rate of recession is proportional to distance. Wherever you start from it will always appear that everything is radiating from YOU. A few simple line diagrams will demonstrate that.
Since we're all at the apparant centre, maybe this should turn into a metaphysical discussion?
Yes, you can extrapolate as you suggest. The problem is that the answer will always be ... "where you are standing when you make measurements".
This is a simple consequence of Hubble's discoveries: the rate of recession is proportional to distance. Wherever you start from it will always appear that everything is radiating from YOU. A few simple line diagrams will demonstrate that.
Since we're all at the apparant centre, maybe this should turn into a metaphysical discussion?
At any point in the universe it would be expanding uniformly away from that point on a large scale.So there is no center point, on a large scale its a bit like dots on an inflating baloon moving away from each other.Space time itself is curved. Its tough to discern as we are accustomed to a lesser number of dimensions (try describing the center of the earth on the the surface of the earth!).
My thoughts after 11 answers
Thank you all for your input
Let me shed some light on my original question
The question was prompted by my thinking that if you measured the speed of recession of two galaxies that appear to be going in opposite directions you would discover that one was receding faster than the other, if you chose two galaxies that are about the same distance away from us. You can, I postulate, conclude that our movement is adding to the apparent speed of one and reducing the apparent speed of the other.
Hopefully you will have chosen wisely so that our motion in space is on the same line of direction, to save having to compensate at this stage.
Which opens up another batch of questions, such as do galaxies travel in straight lines, did all these three galaxies, or their makings, come into being at the same time,
will that give a point on the line where all the galaxies originated, if not why not?
My supplementary question on the 15th
What evidence is there that there was nothing before the BB?
How can we possibly speculate about what was or was not, if there were galaxies surrounding the event they would now be further out in space than we can observe.
Let us assume there was only one Bang we have enough problems with just the one.
Does anyone know of any extrapolation discussion?
I ask only in the spirit of enlightenment.
Hi Jake-the-peg, thank you for your input.
Can you explain, if you would, how the red shift disproves this common misconception as you put it, I understand the expansion theories, but what do you mean when you say it happened everywhere?
I do not disprove the Big Bang and I appreciate that time is not constant.
Can you say there was no time before the Big Bang just because we know nothing about it?
Thank you all for your input
Let me shed some light on my original question
The question was prompted by my thinking that if you measured the speed of recession of two galaxies that appear to be going in opposite directions you would discover that one was receding faster than the other, if you chose two galaxies that are about the same distance away from us. You can, I postulate, conclude that our movement is adding to the apparent speed of one and reducing the apparent speed of the other.
Hopefully you will have chosen wisely so that our motion in space is on the same line of direction, to save having to compensate at this stage.
Which opens up another batch of questions, such as do galaxies travel in straight lines, did all these three galaxies, or their makings, come into being at the same time,
will that give a point on the line where all the galaxies originated, if not why not?
My supplementary question on the 15th
What evidence is there that there was nothing before the BB?
How can we possibly speculate about what was or was not, if there were galaxies surrounding the event they would now be further out in space than we can observe.
Let us assume there was only one Bang we have enough problems with just the one.
Does anyone know of any extrapolation discussion?
I ask only in the spirit of enlightenment.
Hi Jake-the-peg, thank you for your input.
Can you explain, if you would, how the red shift disproves this common misconception as you put it, I understand the expansion theories, but what do you mean when you say it happened everywhere?
I do not disprove the Big Bang and I appreciate that time is not constant.
Can you say there was no time before the Big Bang just because we know nothing about it?
My thoughts after 11 answers
cont.
Hello MatydaLover, thanks for you input.
Your first paragraph puts it well, but I cannot make any sense of your answer on extrapolation, yes I agree that everything appears to be radiating from you but we should be able to use the difference in speeds to come to some conclusion.
You state that the rate of recession is proportional to distance.
Can you elaborate, distance from what?
Can we assume that the expansion of the universe is uniform?
Hello Robb Phoenix, Thank you for your answer.
You seem to be suggesting it�s a matter of scale and the differences in speed are so small that you cannot measure them.
I await more input from you all with great interest.
cont.
Hello MatydaLover, thanks for you input.
Your first paragraph puts it well, but I cannot make any sense of your answer on extrapolation, yes I agree that everything appears to be radiating from you but we should be able to use the difference in speeds to come to some conclusion.
You state that the rate of recession is proportional to distance.
Can you elaborate, distance from what?
Can we assume that the expansion of the universe is uniform?
Hello Robb Phoenix, Thank you for your answer.
You seem to be suggesting it�s a matter of scale and the differences in speed are so small that you cannot measure them.
I await more input from you all with great interest.
The rate of recession being proportional to distance is a consequence of a conventional explosion. Some things blow apart faster than others. So it seeems reasonable that X being three times further away than Y, must be travelling three times faster than Y because they both started in the same place at the same time. This is what Hubble observed.
But this is true wherever you are, on the planet Earth or on a remote galaxy. Wherever you go, it looks like YOU are the starting-point.
You can demonstrate this by drawing a straight line on a piece of paper with points marked every inch (say). Then, pick any point and call it the origin. Then, mark the other points as having 10 units of speed for every inch they are away from the origin. You have something like ... +30, +20, +10, 0, -10, -20 ... The rate of recession is proportional to the distance from the origin.
Now, pick any other point where you think we might be (say, on the planet earth at point +20). Now calculate the apparant rates of recession relative to us on Earth. You will see that they are exactly the same as for the origin. WHATEVER point you choose, it will always appear the same. There is no difference from one point to another.
In other words, there is nothing to differentiate the origin from all the rest. A bit like being in an infinite forest - how do you find the middle? All the trees look the same, wherever you go it always looks the same.
On the large scale, everything is moving away from us in straight lines - if they were not, then it would not support the idea of a big bang from a singularity.
I think the experts assume that expansion is the same everywhere, but mainly because there is no reason or evidence to suppose otherwise. Any other assumption is a guess.
Hoping this clarifies my ideas. I can't blame anyone else!
But this is true wherever you are, on the planet Earth or on a remote galaxy. Wherever you go, it looks like YOU are the starting-point.
You can demonstrate this by drawing a straight line on a piece of paper with points marked every inch (say). Then, pick any point and call it the origin. Then, mark the other points as having 10 units of speed for every inch they are away from the origin. You have something like ... +30, +20, +10, 0, -10, -20 ... The rate of recession is proportional to the distance from the origin.
Now, pick any other point where you think we might be (say, on the planet earth at point +20). Now calculate the apparant rates of recession relative to us on Earth. You will see that they are exactly the same as for the origin. WHATEVER point you choose, it will always appear the same. There is no difference from one point to another.
In other words, there is nothing to differentiate the origin from all the rest. A bit like being in an infinite forest - how do you find the middle? All the trees look the same, wherever you go it always looks the same.
On the large scale, everything is moving away from us in straight lines - if they were not, then it would not support the idea of a big bang from a singularity.
I think the experts assume that expansion is the same everywhere, but mainly because there is no reason or evidence to suppose otherwise. Any other assumption is a guess.
Hoping this clarifies my ideas. I can't blame anyone else!
1 to 15 of 15
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles51 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles65 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles72 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles90 mins ago
