Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote:

Ann wrote:But a Big Crunch...that's more than I can take.

The nice thing about a Big Crunch is that it suggests a cyclical universe, and the chance to do it all again.

This is getting quite old, and I should probably let it lie down and die... but Chris, what is it to you if the universe is cyclical?

Ann

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:

ta152h0 wrote:I recommend an ice cold one

Soon. And the rest of you may think - it's too late. Merry Christmas to all. Thanks for the replies over the last few years. APOD has made my life quite a bit more interesting!! Beyond - you just started the Big Drain theory. Ron

Geeze, i hope not

Chris Peterson wrote:

Beyond wrote:It seems as though most people who 'think' about the Big Bang, think of it much like a bomb went off and all the parts of the bomb just keep going outward and outward. But what if the big bang was more like a big whoosh and something is still flowing into the area of the universe from where it first started?

The area of the Universe where it started is around t=0. We are currently at about t=13.8 billion years. We can change our x, y, and z coordinates, but we don't seem to be able to change t. There is no three dimensional place where the Big Bang occurred.

Of course not. This 3-dimensional place we call the universe, is but a small part of the result of what happened. With human scientific equipment, no matter how advanced, man will never be able to see very much of the result that he is in. Nor will he ever be able to see what was here before the event occurred and changed everything, including the event itself. Nor will he ever be able to see what caused the event, as that was also changed by the result. So even if someone knew just what to look for and where to look, it wouldn't and couldn't be recognized as the event, because it's all been changed by what happened. It's sort of a gigantic version of a 'catch-22'.

Beyond wrote:It seems as though most people who 'think' about the Big Bang, think of it much like a bomb went off and all the parts of the bomb just keep going outward and outward. But what if the big bang was more like a big whoosh and something is still flowing into the area of the universe from where it first started?

The area of the Universe where it started is around t=0. We are currently at about t=13.8 billion years. We can change our x, y, and z coordinates, but we don't seem to be able to change t. There is no three dimensional place where the Big Bang occurred.

ta152h0 wrote:I recommend an ice cold one

Soon. And the rest of you may think - it's too late. Merry Christmas to all. Thanks for the replies over the last few years. APOD has made my life quite a bit more interesting!! Beyond - you just started the Big Drain theory. Ron

It seems as though most people who 'think' about the Big Bang, think of it much like a bomb went off and all the parts of the bomb just keep going outward and outward. But what if the big bang was more like a big whoosh and something is still flowing into the area of the universe from where it first started?

I recommend an ice cold one

It's true - the point where the universe began is everywhere today. Which brings up a convoluted idea that seemed logical when I first started posting here not so long ago. That being "if we use telescopes to look back in time why can't we use microscopes or particle accelerators to detect into the small - looking forward in time". That was only humorous thought that could only land me on a APOD "watch list".

But on knowing that all the baryonic matter we see today was created at the moment of the Big Bang, it's constituents must have one thing in common – they are all the same age. As we delve farther and farther into matter's building blocks are we also looking back in time to it as it was created at the moment of the Big Bang? Maybe my original logic was backwards? The new logic is likely just as wrong but I can't imagine not trying to "get it".

Part of the discussion above was into faster-than-light travel. Do we know how fast quarks are moving inside protons and neutrons? Or even if they are the most basic parts of matter. Given relativity, couldn't those basic parts of matter be moving or vibrating so fast that their "time' is exactly the same today (for matter's smallest units) as it was at the moment of the Big Bang? It's probably common knowledge for those who actually do this for a living but it is a new thought for me.

Sorry, I don't want to be "back on the list" but I would like to be in the discussion as it is being "hashed" out. After all we are looking "into matter" to find out about the universe. Maybe we will find out our own matter always held the answers locked up in its DNA of time.

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:The part that I get stuck with is that the point where it all began has expanded to where it is now but the point when it started may still be viewed by technology yet devised (very, very powerful telescopes or even different devices) in some of our minds.

We will never see the point when it started, with any technology. At best, we will collect information of some sort that was created when it started- particles, gravitational waves, maybe something else. But there exists no direction in which we are capable of seeing that would let us see the Big Bang itself. We can choose to look in any spatial dimension, but we are limited in time to now, and now only. And I don't think that's going to change.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:It's not there anymore

Are you sure there isn't a remnant?

Of course there's a remnant. But the Big Bang itself is over.

How far in the distance do you need to look to see the birth of your grandfather? The question makes no sense, because it confounds distance with time. Nevertheless, you yourself could be considered a remnant of your grandfather's birth.

I think it's hard for many of us to sense the real, time-enduring universe because what you stated is true. What the universe is now is completely different than what it was at the beginning. The part that I get stuck with is that the point where it all began has expanded to where it is now but the point when it started may still be viewed by technology yet devised (very, very powerful telescopes or even different devices) in some of our minds.

The other, even more hypothetical, theory that multiple universes overlap might be argued and, if the exact point where our universe began were at one specific point in a coordinate grid, that point may still exist although not visible in our universe.

So many alternate universe theories, so little time and so few tools to understand them - that is the bigger issue for us short-lived humans.

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:It's not there anymore

Are you sure there isn't a remnant?

Of course there's a remnant. But the Big Bang itself is over.

How far in the distance do you need to look to see the birth of your grandfather? The question makes no sense, because it confounds distance with time. Nevertheless, you yourself could be considered a remnant of your grandfather's birth.

ThePiper wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

ta152h0 wrote:If this thing is 50 million light-years away, can we infer the Big Bang is 13.4 billion light years away, somewhere out there ??

It's not there anymore.

Are you sure there isn't a remnant?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/phys ... oles-real/

Though the stuff from a physicist's fairy tale, the black hole which may have created our universe may have spawned a white hole that created ours. Looking back into the time before the epoch of re-ionization to view out potential birthplace might be quite fantasmic but so is thinking about how the universe will end. I don't know why the Big Crunch sounds more appealing but renewal sounds better than the dissipation of Big Rip.

The Big Bounce projects even a better feeling yet, alas, we've never know unless we bounce back in some other way.

My day's chore will be to watch this video. Maybe I'll learn something new.

BDanielMayfield wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:You mean you're worried about what will happen to yourself or your descendents a few trillion years from now? I think you can probably put those concerns out of your mind.

No, I've actually never been even a bit concerned about such things Chris. To have such concerns would be irrational, don't you agree?

I'm not sure I'd use the word irrational, since we're talking about a philosophical viewpoint. But there are probably a lot more important things to worry about if you're inclined to worry at all.

geckzilla wrote:Bruce should also know better.

Agreed. (And that's true in more ways than one.)

geckzilla wrote:We've been here before. Ann is unmovable in her stance. Bruce is too. Somehow, people keep poking them.

Stimulus, response. Stimulus, response.

It's good to be alive, isn't it Ann?

Nitpicker wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:I understand the physical basis for Chris's statement. If this physical cosmos really is all there is, then "heat death" is a reasonable forecast for the Universe. But I'd rather not abandon all hope, so I won't.

Chris was only talking about the fate of the Universe, not the fate of anything outside the scope of the Universe. You've accepted that your eternal hope lies outside the scope of the Universe, so the trifling heat death of the Universe is of no consequence. So cheer up, Bruce.

I appreciate the friendlier tone Nitpicker, even if it may be tongue in cheek. Yes, the hope I hold in common with millions of others is from an extra-Universal source, but it does involve the physical world too. I don't think I can explain further without breaking rules. I remain cheerful, as ever.

Chris Peterson wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:If this physical cosmos really is all there is, then "heat death" is a reasonable forecast for the Universe. But I'd rather not abandon all hope, so I won't.

You mean you're worried about what will happen to yourself or your descendents a few trillion years from now? I think you can probably put those concerns out of your mind.

No, I've actually never been even a bit concerned about such things Chris. To have such concerns would be irrational, don't you agree?

geckzilla wrote:We've been here before. Ann is unmovable in her stance. Bruce is too. Somehow, people keep poking them.

Well... I'm an idiot, you know?

But I think I can take some poking. So poke away, people!
Ann

Chris Peterson wrote:

ta152h0 wrote:If this thing is 50 million light-years away, can we infer the Big Bang is 13.4 billion light years away, somewhere out there ??

The Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. It can't be said to be at any distance at all because it's done. It's over. It's not there anymore. Since the Universe was opaque for a few hundred years after the Big Bang, no photons from that time are visible. But photons were released when the Universe became transparent 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Those photons have been traveling for 13.8 billion years, during which time the Universe they've traveled through has expanded to a radius of 46.6 billion light years. That has resulted in the photons having their wavelength stretched from a peak in the visible to a peak of about a millimeter. We detect that as the cosmic microwave background.

Although we detect these photons here (as we do all photons), they appear to be emanating from a sphere surrounding us, which is the edge of the observable universe. We should be able to see slightly beyond that with something other than light, such as gravitational waves. Beyond that, the fabric of the Universe is expanding at greater than the speed of light, and is therefore causally disconnected from us and forever beyond our ability to detect.

The best, most compact description of the big picture ever seen. Thanks, Chris!

Bruce should also know better.

Awww, I only poked Bruce, because Bruce poked Chris. (But sorry mom.)

We've been here before. Ann is unmovable in her stance. Bruce is too. Somehow, people keep poking them.

Ann wrote:But a Big Crunch...that's more than I can take.

The nice thing about a Big Crunch is that it suggests a cyclical universe, and the chance to do it all again.

Chris Peterson wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:If this physical cosmos really is all there is, then "heat death" is a reasonable forecast for the Universe. But I'd rather not abandon all hope, so I won't.

You mean you're worried about what will happen to yourself or your descendents a few trillion years from now? I think you can probably put those concerns out of your mind.

I don't worry too much about the heat death of the universe.

On the other hand, I do feel pretty relieved that there probably won't be a Big Crunch a few trillion (or, gasp, maybe just a few billion) years from now!

I'm not too worried about the Milky Way colliding with Andromeda a mere three billion years or so from now. But a Big Crunch...that's more than I can take.

I know... in this case, I'm like the Grinch shouting "I'm an idiot" and having the echo of his cave shouting back at him, "You're an idiot!"

Ann

BDanielMayfield wrote:I understand the physical basis for Chris's statement. If this physical cosmos really is all there is, then "heat death" is a reasonable forecast for the Universe. But I'd rather not abandon all hope, so I won't.

Chris was only talking about the fate of the Universe, not the fate of anything outside the scope of the Universe. You've accepted that your eternal hope lies outside the scope of the Universe, so the trifling heat death of the Universe is of no consequence. So cheer up, Bruce.

Boomer12k wrote:There do APPEAR to be galaxies that move closer to the S.O.L...Galaxies, IF ANY, beyond what we see as the "edge of the Universe", or outside the Universe, could be seen "in red shift"...as going faster than light...but I think that would be an illusion...because of the MASS of said Galaxy or Material...

Not the Universe, but the observable universe. And there is certainly mass beyond the edge of the observable universe that is moving at greater than c relative to us. That's why there is an edge. But every point in the Universe has its own observable universe around it. If you were near the edge we observe (on either side of it), you'd see a Universe that looks like ours (with some different objects, of course), and you'd see us as highly redshifted and near the edge of the observable universe.