Big Bang map uni-directional?

[fionacat1]

OK, from a non-astronomer, non-mathematician...today's map of the Big Bang and expanding universe shows the "explosion" in only one direction. Why isn't the "explosion" shown to be outward, in all directions from a central point?

Pete Peterman

[bajan]

It's a diagram - a graph- and not a picture. A picture can only represent something at a particular instant of time. In this diagram, time is illustrated as increasing left to right.

[BMAONE23]

It would seem to me that if the explosion were like a shockwave that it would be the leading edge of the universal bubble and therefore all around us and not just in one direction. Ergo you will never see the "Bang" itself only as far back(out) as the edge of the shockwave. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

[ta152h0]

Time is positive, only goes in one direction

[kovil]

It's a problem of dimensions. How does one express 4 dimensions on a two dimensional piece of paper?
So they compromised and show time going left to right, and the other 3 by oblique projection, like in drafting class. As the Big Bang Theory (BBT) goes, the "expansion" is a dimensional expansion, which is ungainly to try to describe on paper, if not impossible. So they did it in a time-line way of illustration, one needs a grain of salt to accept the spirit of what they are saying. (don't read it literally, like the Bible, if taken literally it leaves one with too many questions and confused by conflicting statements.)

Unfortunately BBT is going to be shown to be as incorrect and as convoluted as Ptolemy was during the time of the Egyptians with his geocentric design of the solar system.

The WMAP is not the echo of, not the edge of, the Big Bang, it is the border of our awareable universe; the border of what we can be aware of, the limit of where we can get information, the kind of information that comes to us at the speed of light, in the differing wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. Beyond this border we can get no information, as the electromagnetic spectrum will not come back to us, for the reason that it has been redshifted so much there is no energy left to come this direction.
This is one reason bigger telescopes are planned, to test this idea !
Can we see 20, 25 billion light years with a 40 meter telescope ?
15 billion light years is the theoretical limit of our awareable universe, aproximately. 2025 should answer that question, maybe 2015.

Dark energy/matter is another convolution of BBT logic in an attempt to keep the kernal of BBT alive. Unfortunately BBT is dead.
How do you get the universe out of nothing? You can't convince a 5 year old of that, you have to have been through high school to ever be that stupid, and you can check, all of the BBT proponents have been through high school.

BBT proponents still view everything in terms of BBT, they do not consider any data in any other light. It is BBT uber alles or nothing.

'They', mainstream astrophysicists, just can't let
loose of BBT for some 'religious reasons' I suspect,
and it clouds their perspective magnificiently.

Like in Galileo's era, the Church has it's agenda,
which has nothing to do with the Truth; it has to do
with power and control. Some things don't change, and
the times are still the same today as then. The BBT
fits nicely with Church ideology, and amazingly is
rigorously adheared to by mainstream physicists
regardless of the light cast upon it by data which
shows it is wrong.

Well enough of my personal agenda. Let's get down to
facts, haha. I wanted to start off with the
observation that the folks propounding these new
insights "Have their heads so far up their asses they
are speaking out of their mouths already" , but had
second thoughts about that as being too lenient a
criticism ! LOL

Here's a lifted bit about redshift; by Halton C. Arp
===

What is redshift?
If the lines in the spectrum of the light from a star
or galaxy appear at a lower frequency (shifted toward
the red) than where they are observed in the spectrum
of the Sun, we say this object has "positive
redshift". The accepted explanation for this effect
is that the object must be moving away from us. This
interpretation is drawn by analogy with the downward
shift in the pitch of a train whistle as it passes
through a railroad crossing and then speeds away from
us.

The question is: "Is recessional velocity the only
thing that can produce a redshift, as modern
astrophysicists presume?"

It has become clear that the answer to that question
is an emphatic "NO!"

[Qev]

Actually, the reason we can't see back beyond the era of recombination (roughly 380000 years after the big bang) is because, until that time, the universe was opaque to electromagnetic radiation, due to the heavy ionization of matter; light could travel only short distances before scattering off of particles, and this tends to randomize any information the light carries, so to speak. It's like trying to see through a heavy fog, all you get is a bright blur.

Once the universe cooled enough to allow neutral matter to form, it became transparent, and light could travel freely. This light is what we see as the Cosmic Microwave Background, stretched to microwave frequencies over the billions of years of universal expansion.

I have some hope that perhaps gravity-wave or neutrino astronomy might permit us to look back beyond the era of recombination, but I imagine that's a ways away yet.

Regarding the Big Bang theory itself... I thought the Inflationary Big Bang model did a pretty good job of accounting for things like the structure of the CMB, the primordial elemental abundances, things like that. Not that there isn't inertia in the scientific community (they're only human!), but is there any really viable competing theory at this point?

[alanmatch]

Also a non-mathematician, non-astrophysicist, but an amateur astronomer, not only did I note that illustration to be uni-directional from a central point, I am also curious as to where that point is?

Theoretically, was the Big Bang from a specific point in time/space?
Or did it happen everywhere all at once? 3-trillionths of a second is
almost beyond anyone's comprehension.

Of course, another limitation for us 3 dimensional beings is to imagine
a multi-dimensional universe (universes).

I have been hooked on APOD for some years. It is phenomenal. Seldom fails to stimulate my mind.

Thanks,

Alan Matchinsky

[jfgecik]

More than any of the above considerations, I found interesting the way the writer "skirted" around the most important issue of all.

He/she wrote: "The Universe is expanding gradually now. But its initial expansion was almost impossibly rapid as it likely grew from quantum scale fluctuations in a trillionth of a second."

What was that? "Quantum scale fluctuations"? Is that the latest politically correct phrase to use instead of referring to the creation of all matter "ex nihilo" (out of nothing) by almighty God?

Even if someone insists that there were "quantum scale fluctuations," then the thing to realize is that God must have made those fluctuations at or near the begiinning of His acts of creation.

If there was a "big bang," God set it in motion, because He willed it. Good to keep in mind while considering all the less important things.

[BMAONE23]

Maybe the "big bang" was the after effect of a particularly good bean and cheese burrito that god had for lunch. It would be a good explanation for the vast quantities of gas necessary to form all the stars

[ta152h0]

and what did it fill into ?

[kovil]

Here at the risk of being overly phlegmatic are some selected passages from a totally dynamite article in the APJ , It seems that whatever is out there in the Interstellar Medium (ISM), it has an effect on the light that is scattering around out there, or in transite past it.
I am awed by their technical precision and dedication to collecting the data. Drawing conclusions is always a sliperyslope.

=========

The Astrophysical Journal, 564:52-59, 2002 January 1
© 2002. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.



The Imprint of Lithium Recombination on the Microwave Background Anisotropies

Matias Zaldarriaga 1 and Abraham Loeb 2

Received 2001 May 19; accepted 2001 August 31

ABSTRACT

Following the 2001 paper of Loeb, we explore the imprint of the resonant 6708 Å line opacity of neutral lithium on the temperature and polarization anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at observed wavelengths of 250350 m (0.91.2 THz). We show that if lithium recombines in the redshift range of z = 400500 as expected, then the standard CMB temperature and polarization anisotropies would be significantly modified in this wavelength band. The lithium signal may be difficult to separate from the contamination by the far-infrared background and galactic foregrounds. We show that in polarization, the signal could be comparable to the expected polarization anisotropies of the far-infrared background on subdegree angular scales ( 100). Detection of the predicted signal can be used to infer the primordial abundance of lithium, and to probe structure in the universe at z 500.

Subject headings: cosmic microwave backgroundcosmology: theory

1 Physics Department, New York University, 4 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003; matiasz@physics.nyu.edu.
2 Astronomy Department, Harvard University, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138; aloeb@cfa.harvard.edu.

1. INTRODUCTION

The latest measurements of the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB; see Halverson et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2001; Netterfield et al. 2001) imply that the days of "precision cosmology" have already arrived.3 Future ground- and balloon-based experiments, in combination with the satellite missions Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP)4 in 2001 and Planck5 in 2007, will test current theoretical models to a subpercent precision at photon wavelengths 500 m.

However, at far-infrared wavelengths of 350 m, Loeb (2001) has recently shown that the drag force between photons and neutral lithium can strongly modify the CMB anisotropy maps through absorption and reemission at the resonant 6708 Å transition of lithium from the ground state. The drag produced by the hydrogen Ly line is small, because on the scales of interest, this line is highly optically thick; the hydrogen Balmer lines have a smaller optical depth, but the occupation probability of the lower level is strongly suppressed by the Boltzmann factor. For helium, the transitions correspond to frequencies too far on the Wien tail of the CMB spectrum to be important. Thus, the lithium transition is the most relevant one (Loeb 2001).

Lithium is expected to recombine in the redshift interval z 400500 (Palla, Galli, & Silk 1995; Stancil, Lepp, & Dalgarno 1996, 1998). Despite the exceedingly low lithium6 abundance produced in the big bang, the resonant optical depth (Sobolev 1946) after lithium recombination is substantial:



for an observed wavelength of (z) = [(6708 Å)(1 + z)] = (335.4 m)[(1 + z)/500]. Here, XLi 3.8 × 10-10 is the latest estimate of the lithium-to-hydrogen number density ratio (Burles, Nollett, & Turner 2001), and f(z) is the neutral fraction of lithium as a function of redshift (Palla et al. 1995; Stancil et al. 1996, 1998). Loeb (2001) argued that resonant scattering would suppress the original anisotropies by a factor of exp(-), but would generate new anisotropies in the CMB temperature and polarization on subdegree scales ( 100), primarily through the Doppler effect. Observations at different far-infrared wavelengths could then probe different thin slices of the early universe.

In this paper, we calculate in detail the effect of neutral lithium on both the polarization and temperature anisotropies of the CMB. Section 2 describes the modifications we have made to the standard code CMBFAST (Seljak & Zaldarriaga 1996) in order to calculate these anisotropies. In § 3 we describe our results and compare them with the foreground noise introduced by the far-infrared emission from galaxies and quasars. Finally, § 4 summarizes the main conclusions of this work.

Throughout the paper, we adopt the low-density cold dark matter (LCDM) cosmological parameters of cdm 0.25, = 0.7, b = 0.05, and H0 70 km s -1 Mpc -1, and units of c = 1.

3 A compilation of all experiments up to date can be found at http://www.hep.upenn.edu/max/cmb/experiments.html.
4 Available at http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/.
5 Available at http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Planck.
6 Note that by the redshift of interest, all the 7Be produced during big bang nucleosynthesis transforms to 7Li through electron capture, since 7Be starts to recombine well before 7Li, owing to its significantly higher ionization potential.

2. METHOD OF CALCULATION

In order to compute the temperature and polarization fluctuations induced by lithium scattering, we complement the standard Thomson opacity (T) in CMBFAST by a new component (), which is assumed to have a narrow Gaussian shape in conformal time:

---

3. RESULTS

The significance of the new opacity component can be assessed from the visibility function (). This function provides the probability distribution for the time of last scattering of the photons observed today at a conformal time 0,



In Figure 1, we show the visibility functions for some of the models that we consider later.


Fig. 1 Visibility function for models with = 0.5 and LCDM. We show three examples, corresponding to resonant scattering at different redshifts: z = 400, 450, and 500. The present-day value of the conformal time is 0 = 1.39 × 104 Mpc.


The observed anisotropies have two separate contributions, one from the standard last-scattering surface at hydrogen recombination (decoupling), which is suppressed by e, and a second new contribution that is generated by lithium scattering at lower redshifts. In the following subsections, we characterize this new contribution to the temperature and polarization anisotropies.

3.1. Temperature and Polarization Anisotropies

Figures 2 and 3 show the predicted power spectra for the temperature and polarization anisotropies of the CMB at an observed wavelength of = 335.4 m, corresponding to lithium scattering at z = 500. The Stokes parameters are measured in K. The figures compare the spectrum of fluctuations in standard LCDM (no lithium scattering) with two other models, each having a peak in at a redshift of z = 500, but with a total optical depth of either = 0.5 or 2.0. Since at long wavelengths ( 500 m) the LCDM fluctuations are not altered, precise mapping of these fluctuations by the MAP or Planck satellites will provide a reference power spectrum against which the lithium distortion can be measured.


Fig. 2 Temperature power spectra for the standard calculation (LCDM model) and two other models with lithium optical depths of = 0.5 and 2.0 at z = 500, for observations in a narrow band around 335 m. The width of the Gaussian in eq. (2) is / = 0.01.


Fig. 3 Polarization power spectra. Models are the same as in Fig. 2.


Figure 2 shows that for = 0.5, the small-scale fluctuations are dominated by the suppressed anisotropies from recombination, resulting in a power spectrum that is similar in shape to that of the primary anisotropies, but suppressed in amplitude. However, the = 2 case is very different. Here, the anisotropies are actually larger for many l's than those expected without the lithium scattering, having a different functional dependence on l than the standard case. The e suppression of the original anisotropies is sufficient to make them subdominant relative to the newly generated anisotropies at z = 500.

There is an interesting difference between the primary anisotropies and those created by lithium scattering. In order to explain it, we introduce the integral solution for the temperature anisotropies,



where is the cosine of the angle between the wavevector and the direction of observation, and and are the two gravitational potentials defined by the perturbed metric, ds2 = a2()[-(1 + 2)d2 + (1 - 2) dxi dxi]. While the contribution from recombination is dominated by the monopole term (/4 + ), the lithium anisotropies are dominated by the peculiar velocity term (vb) on most scales. We illustrate this in Figure 4, in which we show the monopole and velocity contributions to the anisotropies in both the standard LCDM model and in a model that has a large optical depth = 10 at z = 500. We chose such a large optical depth in order to suppress the original contribution from decoupling. The figure clearly shows that the anisotropies are dominated by the monopole term for the standard LCDM model for almost all values of l, while the opposite is true for the = 10 model. The new anisotropies are dominated by the monopole term only at very low multipoles, l 20.







Fig. 4 Velocity and temperature contribution to anisotropies for LCDM and for a model with = 10 at z = 500. The curves that approach a finite value at low l are the temperature contributions, and the curves that approach zero at low l describe the velocity contributions.


We can easily explain why the monopole no longer dominates for the lithium contribution. After recombination, the monopole term decays by the free streaming of the photons, while the velocity of the baryons continues to grow as they fall into dark matter potential wells. For a perturbation mode of wavevector k, the monopole term at conformal time after recombination, > rec, is approximately given by



where j0(x) is the spherical Bessel function. Equation (9) shows that the monopole term is small for k( - rec) 1 because of the decay in the Bessel function when its argument is large. Figure 1 shows that the new peak of the visibility function occurs at 500 Mpc, while rec 300 Mpc. We can translate the spatial wavenumber k to angular scale using the conformal distance to the new peak in the visibility function, d = (0 - ) 0. We find that k( - rec) 1.6 × 10-2l, which explains why the monopole term is suppressed for l 60.

While the monopole term decays between recombination and the lithium-scattering surface, the velocity grows, and thus produces anisotropies that are larger than those generated at decoupling in the = 2 case.

The physics of the polarization anisotropies is different from that of the temperature anisotropies. Since polarization is generated by the quadrupole moment, there are two competing effects that need to be considered. On the one hand, the quadrupole anisotropies are small at recombination, since they are suppressed relative to the velocity fluctuations by a factor k , where is the width of the last-scattering surface at recombination (Zaldarriaga & Harari 1995). In the new scenario, the quadrupole is able to grow during the free-streaming period between recombination and z 500. This naturally leads to an increase in the polarization signal. The same effect increases the polarization anisotropies on large scales in models with a substantial optical depth to Thomson scattering after the universe reionizes (Zaldarriaga 1997). On the other hand, due to the nature of resonant-line scattering (Hamilton 1947; Chandrasekhar 1960), only 1/3 of the cross section generates polarization out of this quadrupole, while 2/3 produces unpolarized radiation (E1 = 1/3, E2 = 2/3). Although the quadrupole is bigger at z 500 than at recombination, the newly generated polarization is not as large. For example, Figure 3 shows that even for = 2, the polarization at high multipoles, l 1000, is dominated by the suppressed signal from decoupling.


3.3. Comparison with the Far-Infrared Foreground

The main difficulty in measuring the lithium imprint on the CMB anisotropies is the contamination by the far-infrared background (FIB). There has been no detection to date of the anisotropies in this background, and so we have to rely on theoretical estimates (Haiman & Knox 2000; Knox et al. 2001).

In order to properly combine the contributions from the CMB and FIB anisotropies, we express intensities in terms of the equivalent Rayleigh-Jeans temperature, TRJ (in K). We start by comparing the temperature anisotropies. The total fluctuation amplitude is given by


The ratio between the CMB intensity and the central value for the inferred intensity of the FIB (Fixsen et al. 1998; see the central dot-dashed curve in Fig. 2 of Haiman & Knox 2000) is of order unity for a lithium-scattering redshift z 500:



As noted by Loeb (2001), the temperature fluctuations in the Wien tail translate to intensity fluctuations I (in ergs s -1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1) of a much larger contrast,



where we have substituted I(T) exp(-h/kT) and T = 2.725 K (Mather et al. 1999). The anisotropy amplitude shown in Figure 7 depends on , but roughly implies (TRJ/TRJ)CMB 3 × 10-4[500/(1 + z)]. Haiman & Knox (2000) and Knox et al. (2001) estimate (TRJ/TRJ)FIB = 0.050.1. The FIB anisotropies peak at an l of a few hundred, but the peak is very broad. The anisotropies in the FIB are relatively large, since they originate from clustering of sources at low redshifts, z 1.

We conclude that if 50% of the lithium ions recombine at z 500, then

(formula that did not transfer)


Since the CMB contribution is subdominant, it is essential to exploit the different frequency dependence of the FIB and CMB anisotropies in order to subtract the FIB contribution with high precision. This might be possible on small angular scales, at which the temperature anisotropies generated by lithium scattering at different redshifts are uncorrelated, as indicated by Figures 5 and 7. Also, since the FIB is produced by point sources, observations with high angular resolution can resolve the sources and remove them individually. Contamination by emission from Galactic dust is also a potential problem. For measurements of the anisotropies in the FIB, it was proposed to look only in the "cleaner" regions of the sky (Knox et al. 2001), which could greatly reduce the contamination. The feasibility of the proposed measurement will only become clear when more is known about the FIB and the sources that produce it. At this stage, it is fair to say that detecting the lithium signal appears to be very difficult.


Depending on the nature of the sources responsible for the FIB and their luminosity function, it may eventually become possible to resolve most of the FIB through high-resolution observations at different wavelengths. This approach is used, for example, in observational studies of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, in which much of the contribution from discrete foreground sources is subtracted out through deep high-resolution observations at either radio or optical-infrared wavelengths. At the present time, there are no available source counts in the wavelength range that we consider here. Closest in wavelength are source counts from the SCUBA instrument (see, e.g., Borys et al. 1999, Fig. 2). If most of the FIB could be resolved, the task of detecting the effect of lithium would become easier, since the overall level of contamination would be drastically reduced. Future studies of the FIB will determine whether this reduction is feasible.

4. CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that if more than half of the lithium ions recombine by z 500, then the temperature and polarization anisotropies of the CMB would be strongly altered at an observed wavelength of 335 m (see Figs. 2 and 3). For high multipoles, l 10, the change is dominated by two contributions: (1) the Doppler anisotropies induced at the sharp lithium-scattering surface; and (2) the uniform exp suppression of the primary anisotropies that were generated at hydrogen recombination (decoupling). Maps taken at wavelengths that are different by only 10% are expected to have significant differences (see Figs. 7 and 8).

The above signals are superimposed on top of the far infrared background (FIB). Our estimates imply that the lithium imprint on the CMB polarization should be comparable to that provided by the FIB (eq. [18]). Detection is more difficult for the temperature anisotropies (eq. [16]).

The wavelength range that we explored overlaps with the highest frequency channel of the Planck mission (352 m), the Balloon-borne Large-Aperture Sub-millimeter Telescope7 (BLAST), which will have 250, 350, and 500 m channels, and the proposed balloon-borne Explorer of Diffuse Galactic Emissions8 (EDGE), which will survey 1% of the sky in 10 wavelength bands between 230 and 2000 m, with a resolution ranging from 6 to 14 (see Table 1 in Knox et al. 2001).

In order to optimize the detection of the lithium signature on the CMB anisotropies, a new instrument design is required, with multiple narrow bands (/ 0.1) at various wavelengths in the range = 250350 m. The experiment should cover a sufficiently large area of the sky so as to determine reliably the statistics of fluctuations on degree scales. In order to minimize contamination from the FIB, the detector should be sensitive to polarization. For reference, the experiment should also measure the anisotropies at shorter wavelengths, at which the FIB dominates. In order to detect the effect of lithium, high signal-to-noise maps of the primordial CMB should be made for the same region of the sky. Most likely, those maps will become available from future CMB missions such as Planck. A strategy for eliminating the contribution from the brightest FIB sources may also be needed.

The resonant optical depth depends sensitively on the primordial lithium abundance and the recombination history of lithium. More detailed calculations of lithium recombination will be done in a forthcoming paper (P. Stancil et al., in preparation). Detection of the lithium signature will also allow calibration of the primordial lithium abundance, which is a sensitive indicator of the mean value and the clumpiness in the baryon abundance during big bang nucleosynthesis. The lithium abundance in nearby stars is subject to large astrophysical uncertainties (Burles et al. 2001, and references therein). We note that values of the lithium opacity that are higher than the ones we have used are potentially possible. As an extreme example, lithium abundance values as high as X 10-8 were suggested by models of inhomogeneous big bang nucleosynthesis (Applegate & Hogan 1985; Sale & Mathews 1986; Mathews, Alcock, & Fuller 1990),

The lithium signature on the CMB anisotropies is the only direct probe proposed so far of structure in the universe at a redshift z 400500. This redshift marks the beginning of the "dark ages," which end only after the first generation of galaxies form at z 20 (see review by Barkana & Loeb 2001).

7 Available at http://www.hep.upenn.edu/blast.
8 Available at http://topweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/.

[Pete]

More than any of the above considerations, I found interesting the way the writer "skirted" around the most important issue of all.

He/she wrote: "The Universe is expanding gradually now. But its initial expansion was almost impossibly rapid as it likely grew from quantum scale fluctuations in a trillionth of a second."

What was that? "Quantum scale fluctuations"? Is that the latest politically correct phrase to use instead of referring to the creation of all matter "ex nihilo" (out of nothing) by almighty God?

Even if someone insists that there were "quantum scale fluctuations," then the thing to realize is that God must have made those fluctuations at or near the begiinning of His acts of creation.

If there was a "big bang," God set it in motion, because He willed it. Good to keep in mind while considering all the less important things.

What about the hard(er)line religious (Christian?) assertion that God created the light we observe from distant objects en route to test mankind's faith?

[harry]

God should not be brought into the equation.

Why ? because on this earth we have 1000's of religions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the Big Bang, there are many cirtics against it, but! many still hang their huts on the BBT.

Yes we have many other good theories and some better than others, so to speak.

I can give you many links to and fro.

I tend to go for the recycle theory. Thats just me.

[bajan]

Supernatural 'explanations' have no place in this forum. If you want to bring in a god concept it must comply with natural law. This is science.

[orin stepanek]

Hi Harry! To recycle; you need something to start with. So; how did that begin?
Orin

[ta152h0]

What we see must be explained, what we can't see must be proved. I believe there is no question the Big Bang ocurred. it was not an explosion in the Newtonian sense.

[kovil]

Harry and others,

Since encountering John Dobson and his ideas of how this universe is constructed, it has changed my views considerably. I don't agree with everything John says, but for the overwhelming most part, yes.

John describes himself as a steady stater with a recycling feature and a governor.

The idea of a stable-state universe arrived the other day, and I like that term, so I am a 'Stable State Universe' proponent, with a recycling feature and a governor, tho I am not fully understanding of the nuances in the proof of the governor feature, I am still in the throws of grasping its concept, in the details. Tho I do like the overall concept very much.
I do not subscribe to the idea that the universe is expanding, either physically or dimensionally, so I do not speak of any expansion in these ways.

Here is how Dobson's idea of the redshift and our having an observational boundary to our universe goes. I like to term it our awareable universe, the universe we can be aware of, it also conotates with proton rest mass, but that is for later.

This was written in '79 or before, so John is dealing with the Big Bang and the Steady State as the main two models, and his writing reflects that then current time in cosmology, so he speaks of the 'expansion' .

"Now this cosmological expansion, as it is called, imposes a boundary on the observable universe, because beyond a certain distance, even if there were galaxies, we couldn't see them. They would be moving away at speeds in excess of the speed of light and it would be impossible for us to see them. It would be impossible for us, by any measurement, to determine the existance of such matter. Radiation from there could never reach us, the gravitational fields could never reach us, nor could any message however contrived."

"Actually, it is the red shift itself, rather than our interpretation of the red shift, which imposes this boundary, and it is an observational boundary, not an actual boundary. It is not a boundary which could be visited. The observer is always at the same distance from it, in all directions, and, at the present observed rate of expansion, this boundary should be about fifteen billion light years away."

"Are there any messages from the borders of the universe which reach us here, and which could be interpreted as evidence that such a boundary does, indeed, exist?"

"Yes, there are. There are several such messages, and one of them is apparent even to the unaided eye. The night sky is dark. We must not let the familiarity of the observation keep us from understanding its significance. If the observable universe were infinite in extent, and if it were speckled with stars as we see it nearby, and if the stars were "forever", then as Kepler and others long ago pointed out, the entire night sky should be bright. Under such conditions, looking in any direction which we choose to look, we would see the face of a star with the surface brightness at least approximately equal to the surface brightness of the sun. Partly the night sky is dark because the red shift of the radiation from the distant galaxies which we can see, robs that radiation of some of its energy. But mostly the night sky is dark because the red shift of the radiation from beyond about fifteen billion light years away would rob that radiation of all of its energy so that we could see nothing at all."

"A second such message is related to the rest mass of matter nearby and is apparent to the unaided hand. If the observable universe were infinite in extent, and of a mean density comparable to the mean density nearby, then the rest mass of matter would be infinite and it would be impossible to shake a stick. Each proton sees itself separated from all other protons in the observable universe, and the gravitational energy involved in this separation is the gravitational rest mass of the proton. It is matched, of course, by its electrical rest mass due to the smallness of the electrical charge. They are two sides of the same coin. Now, with the present known strength of the gravitational field, if the number of protons from which each proton saw itself separated were infinite, then its gravitational energy (its mass) would, likewise, be infinite. Once again, we must not allow ourselves to be thrown by our familiarity with the observation."
"A FINITE REST MASS CAN ARISE ONLY IN A FINITE UNIVERSE"

"There is a third message, not so obvious, arising from the extreme red shift of the radiation from very near the border. If, as seen by us, most of the energy of that radiation is red shifted away, then, as seen by us, most of the energy of the particles giving rise to that radiation will also be red shifted away. Then, since E=m , the rest mass of those particles will be seen to be very low, and the radiation moving through the vicinity of those low rest mass electrical particles will be so often absorbed and re-radiated as to reach us thermalized to a black body radiation at about 3 degrees Kelvin. If an observational boundary such as we have suggested does really exist, then this thermalized black body radiation should reach us from all directions in space. Such a microwave background radiation was discovered in the 1960's and is interpreted by the proponents of the "big bang" hypothesis as the radiation of the fireball cooled by some fifteen billion years of expansion. But it is unavoidable even in the "steady state" model."

"A fourth message, if it may be considered to be a message at all, depends, as so many cosmological messages do depend, on the model of the universe that is assumed in the interpretation of the evidence. It is related to the density of the universe and, once again, it is not immediately apparent."

"For a "big bang" model, a model which explains the apparent expansion of the universe as due to a cosmic explosion, a gradual decrease in the overall density of matter in the universe is acceptable. It is not acceptable, however, for a "steady state" model which assumes that the expansion is beginingless and is driven by the energy which the radiation loses in its long traverse of the vast, expanding spaces of the universe. A universe of finite density cannot result from a beginingless expansion without some mechanism to prevent its decrease in density. Either there must be a mechanism for the creation of new matter within it or there must be a mechanism for the recycling of material from the boundary back into the observational universe. Is there such a mechanism?"

"Curiously enough, there is. And it arises through Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. As the rest mass of the particles near the boundary is seen to approach zero, the momentum of those particles is also seen to approach zero, and if the momentum approaches zero, then our uncertainty in that momentum must also approach zero. But, by the uncertainty principle, if our uncertainty in the momentum of a particle approaches zero, then our uncertainty in its positon must approach infinity, and there is then no measurement whatsoever by which we could determine that the particle is near the boundary. If the uncertainty in the position goes to infinity, the particle may be found anywhere. This should give rise to a rain of "brand new" hydrogen throughout the observable universe."

"It should be noted that this "steady state" model does not suggest that the expansion of the universe should be constant in time or homogeneous throughout space. Nor does it suggest that the size of the observable universe should remain constant. It only suggests that there should be some sort of mechanism to bring it back to some sort of norm. If, for instance, the expansion rate were somehow doubled, the receding galaxies would reach the speed of light at about seven and a half billion light years from us instead of the currently estimated fifteen billion. Then the protons would see themselves separated from a smaller number of other protons, and their rest mass would thus decrease. But if their rest mass decreases, the rate at which they would fall together by gravity would likewise decrease. Then the radiation rate would go down and the boundaries of the observable universe would again recede, raising the rest mass of the protons. Similarly, if the expansion rate were slowed, the boundaries of the observable universe would recede from us. The proton mass would consequently rise, increasing the radiation rate, which, in turn, would increase the expansion rate, and bring the boundary back in."

This last paragraph is Dobson's governor concept. As the rest mass of the protons decreases from the border moving closer, the force of gravity lessens appropriately. This causes suns to radiate less strongly, and drive the expansion slower. The slowing of the expansion rate, makes it take longer to reach light speed, so the observable universe grows in size, and that makes the protons more massive, strengthening the force of gravity, which makes stars burn brighter ? or radiate more strongly and drive the expansion faster, causing things to reach light speed sooner and make the border of the observable universe come closer in.
Things tend to seek a ballancing, but things are allowed to vary.
I wonder if solar fluctuations like the sunspot cycle have any realation to the borders moving closer or further. Probably not, as the magnetohydrodynamics twisting the magnetic field lines until they buckle like a rubber band aeroplane of popsicle sticks when the propeller is wound around so many times the rubber band starts making big twisty knots ! I would like to look for a longer periodicity varyable that would truly reflect the observable boundary's fluctuations.
What would be a realistic fluctuation rate for the observable border to waver. Would there be a periodic harmonic based on the size of the awareable universe and the speed of light ? A natural vibration if you will.
A music of the sphere's !!

Could the polarization lines in the WMAP be related to local areas changing their expansion/contraction of the border, in some kind of harmonic variation rate. A kind of interferrometer of the CMBR as varied by the restmass of matter fluctuating? The lines might be nodes of intersection waves from the expansion variations.

[ta152h0]

And the business of " the first trillionth of a second " that is often quoted when discussion of the Big Bang ocurrs, is in reference to time measure, how far the earth has moved in its orbit around the sun, and how much the Earth has rotated. It has nothing to do with " how fast the expansion actually developed ". If all this happened with or without divine guidance, that is your belief and it is none of my business.

[greatergood]

God should not be brought into the equation.

Why ? because on this earth we have 1000's of religions.

Why does God have to belong to a religion? That's like saying you belong to your possessions. I think everyone, religionists, and non-religionists, would be a ton more tolerant of the idea of an intelligent designer or designers if they understood that one simple point.

[Martin]

Respectively "kovil" is what I call a wandering idiot. I mean nothing personal about this really. He seems to be lost and trying to find his way to total explanation. However, he will not ever find it. Please do not allow yourself to be sucked into his expansion of hot air and empty space. He is just a frightened little kovil.

His references to BBT and church are ridiculous. There will always be the unknown because we simply will not ever be able to know it all. This is a school kid’s reason for running away from the truth.

[Martin]

And....

To prohibit conversation about any reasonable or constructive subject is not scientific. Science and creation go hand in hand. You will not have one without the other.

It's unfortunate that most if not all people rely on the words of the corruptable to find meaning and direction for themselves. What's more unfortunate is that people think that god is religion. Religion is tradition and tradition is history given with a steroid injection. It has a purpose but in the long run there are no benefits.

furthermore, if you use the word "he" or "him" in reference to the almighty you may be unaware that you too are a lost little soul with a body and a brain.

[kovil]

Hey Orin,

Which came first ?
The chicken or the egg?

answer hint:
(it was the rooster !)

[typical alpha-male response, eh?]


So in the matter of which was first, the fields or the particles;
Matter or Energy,
the Universe or the Big Bang.

As the Vedantins speak about it,
was it a Transformational causation for the Universe
or was it an Apparitional causation for the Universe ?

Their thinking was,
to be a transformational causation, something had to exist to be transformed. So as a primary causation for the Universe, that would not be logical.

Then maybe it was an apparitional causation that was the first cause for the Universe. Something metaphysical was from what this Universe sprang, or breathed itself into existance. (metaphysical -- meaning beyond the physical)

Their logic led them to the conclusion that whatever is beyond our Universe's border, or whatever was here that caused the universe to appear;
It must be,

Infinite
Undivided
Changeless

Those are the apparitional characteristics of THAT .

For more details, see "Beyond Space and Time" by John Dobson

ps, the Big Bang map is Omni-directional ; in how the artist was meaning to represent it, but he had to draw perimeters to have the picture make sense.

[astroton]

I am looking for John Dobson's book and shall read it as soon as I can get it.

I think, science, Astronomy or any realm of life, Demi Gods - the proponents of religions - have done more damage than the God him/her/it/thy/self.

The BBT model and the new concepts of one-trillionth second expansion look good as a graph, but the red shift, the postulate on which such a massive theory has been based, in itself looks too weak.

To the supporters of BBT,

BBT stands on very weak evidence. We used to think Newtonian gravity and Euclidian geometry were unquestionable, and look what Einstein did in GTR.

So, don't criticize the opponents of BBT too harshly. When you say "wondering Idiots", as far as BBT goes you are no different, until something concrete immerges, and BBT surely is not something concrete.

[kovil]

Astroton,

Amazon has a price reduction and if you can stand to have another credit card, you can get $30 off your purchase price!

The Vedanta online bookstore!

One more suggestion; Yesterday two books arrived here.
Both by Halton Arp, both look to be excellent.

Seeing Red; redshifts, cosmology and academic science
In this one he has some choice comments and insights in the last section about how institutional academic heirarchies produce competitive backstabbing and a resounding closing of the doors to any ideas that are not in line with the bigwig in charge of funding's ideas.

The other book, a looseleaf ,for easier reading the pages flat,
(like next to the telescope !)
Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations
In which a large number of symetrical structures are examined with intrigueing possibilities. What we are seeing is very much in need of interpretation. There is some great debate over what are they really.

And as Arp points out, those with position, a big salary, and an ego to match, have little interest in pursueing the search for the Truth, they have a much more vested interest in diverting all attention to their agenda of choice. Sad for Science, but a testament to the human psychological profile exhibited by the unenlightened.

For after all, the historical use for institutions of higher learning, has been to corral the brightest young men into a place where they are channeled into specializations, and are then no longer a challenge to the One In Power. For to succeed to being the One In Power, one needs to be exceptionally good at everything, a Generalist in other words. By specializing the brightest men, they can never be successfull generalists, and will therefore never successfully challenge the dominant, One In Power. And that is why they teach lies at Universities. Why faulty logic is unchallenged, why BBT is assumed to be correct and any data challenging it is dismissed as being irrelevant. Why mistakes, inaccuracies and falsehoods in textbooks are pushed on students to accept them.
They are molding young minds to be followers (like the church does and wants) ; they are not teaching people how to think, nor find the truth.
It is a sheeple factory. You can recognize sheeple by the words they say and the ideas they haven't examined and their illogic.

But, hey, you already know all that !

As the guru's say, there's nobody else out there !
So I'm just talking to myself, and it's OK to say anything !
(but I do need to check how it plays back, and if it is true)

Kovil

[astroton]

Kovil,

I will check out local Vedanta society. By the way Are they the same as ISKCON or Chinmoy Mission or different?