Before the big bang

rccaulfield

Kevster wrote: »

It's a combination of a lot of things, rccaulfield, including the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the way that galaxies and stars have formed and evolved, and - yes - the Doppler effect comes into it too as we measure how far other celestial bodies are away from us (but more importantly the fact that most seem to be accelerating away from us).

Kevin

Ok (Devils advocate)cmb i find is looking for a cause when we have the answer. It just might be from something else until know unknown. The Dopler i've some ideas on how that might be giving misleading information to us, but the acceration might be the clincher!-Can you elaborate on how we know that celestial bodies are accelerating away? Thanks!

Kevster

We know that they're moving away from us because their wavelengths are 'shifted' towards the red end of the visible spectrum, I think. Im really not the best to answer this question.

If you can picture the Sun in front of you, you will see it as a yellow body - it is stationary. If it suddenly started to move towards you, the wavelength of it's emitted light would appear shorter than usual (i.e. towards the blue part of the spectrum). Conversely, if it suddenly started to move away from you, it's wavelenth would appear longer than usual (i.e. towards the red part of the spectrum).

Beeker

Kevster wrote: »

We know that they're moving away from us because their wavelengths are 'shifted' towards the red end of the visible spectrum, I think. Im really not the best to answer this question.

If you can picture the Sun in front of you, you will see it as a yellow body - it is stationary. If it suddenly started to move towards you, the wavelength of it's emitted light would appear shorter than usual (i.e. towards the blue part of the spectrum). Conversely, if it suddenly started to move away from you, it's wavelenth would appear longer than usual (i.e. towards the red part of the spectrum).

That's it Kevster, sounds correct to me! The further the wavelength is towards the red, the faster the object is moving away from us. This is just what we see.The further away the objects are from us the faster they seem to be moving.

Kevster

..phew! I'm sure Prof. Fink will have something to add though

When I first read that the further a bod is from us, the faster it is accelerating, I was thinking that 'reaching for the stars' (i.e. exploring outer worlds) is a pipe-dream.

Beeker

Kevster wrote: »

..phew! I'm sure Prof. Fink will have something to add though

When I first read that the further a bod is from us, the faster it is accelerating, I was thinking that 'reaching for the stars' (i.e. exploring outer worlds) is a pipe-dream.

Reaching for the stars is fine the problem would be other Galaxies. It seems that the expansion of the Universe is only on the large scale, ie between the Galaxies but not on a local level, ie between the stars
So we can still reach the stars:)

poppyvalley

MooseJam wrote: »

There was nothing, is it possible for the human mind to picture nothing, no time no space, usually when we picture nothing we imagine an absence of things but an empty void where things could be, can you imagine a total nothing where even nothing itself doesn't exist.

It's hard to put it into words does anybody know what i'm getting at ?

my threads keep vanishing ere i get chance 2 post them

ynotdu

Beeker wrote: »

Reaching for the stars is fine the problem would be other Galaxies. It seems that the expansion of the Universe is only on the large scale, ie between the Galaxies but not on a local level, ie between the stars
So we can still reach the stars:)

Well we are all in the gutter,but some of us have our eyes on the stars!:){one of lifes Truisms}

The expanding Universe though,where is it expanding to?somewhere that does not exist or does not exist yet?
Where is the end of Space?
can it be created by an expanding Universe or is there a limit that like a dying star. after our expanding universe stops expanding will it have to implode and go through the stages of white Dwarf then black hole ?{ again using a stars life as something we can conceive and have proof of,rather than theory's}

There are Stars that have twins that were drawn closer to them by one having a superior Gravitational field,but not enough to 'swallow up' the other star!
So many questions,so little 'relative' time!

wylo

MooseJam wrote: »

There was nothing, is it possible for the human mind to picture nothing, no time no space, usually when we picture nothing we imagine an absence of things but an empty void where things could be, can you imagine a total nothing where even nothing itself doesn't exist.

It's hard to put it into words does anybody know what i'm getting at ?

Heres a very interesting read regarding 'nothing' or the lack of it.
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%20universe%20from.htm

ynotdu

wylo wrote: »

Heres a very interesting read regarding 'nothing' or the lack of it.
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%20universe%20from.htm

Fascinating read wylo although beyond comprehension in parts as the Author freely admits:

Even if 'nothing'was always there meaning in theory nothing IS something

The Universe was ALWAYS there as part of 'nothingness'even though nothing by its nature is nothing,although he admits both would have to go hand in hand

using pure logic he makes the argument that there could not have been one in isolation.
i have not absorbed on first reading all he has to say,but i got to say he has thought it through to the limits of anybody who has!

his questioning of our 'perception'of time is valid IMO.

So where does that leave us?

AFAIK 'god' is Alpha and omega in all religions,So that logicly leaves two things,god is the beginning and the end of time,all the history and future of the universe are a nano-second(even less)in 'gods perception',but that cannot be true if there is an 'always'

the alternative that 'god'created the Universe in six days means that he knew he was creating fallen Angels and the Devil himself and could forsee that and the suffering it would cause,again that does not tally with a loving 'god'?

I used to put it down to the force of Evil or Good were 'unthinkinking'entitys,in the way Gravity does not say to itself I am going to keep this person glued to Earth but does it anyway!

Did you ever feel that our known universe is just a 'fish-bowl' in a much larger scheme of things,i know i do!

as much as religion is 'blind faith' i am beginning to think so too is the big bang theory!

both are equally 'unprovable' yet i find myself being brought back towards considering a 'Creator'of some type from this thread.

Phew!
Well thanks again for the link!:)

rccaulfield

Kevster wrote: »

We know that they're moving away from us because their wavelengths are 'shifted' towards the red end of the visible spectrum, I think. Im really not the best to answer this question.

If you can picture the Sun in front of you, you will see it as a yellow body - it is stationary. If it suddenly started to move towards you, the wavelength of it's emitted light would appear shorter than usual (i.e. towards the blue part of the spectrum). Conversely, if it suddenly started to move away from you, it's wavelenth would appear longer than usual (i.e. towards the red part of the spectrum).

Thanks Kevster- but again that comes back to the doppler effect which means that our whole theory of the big bang revolves around the premise that the doppler effect is fact. Which of course it is....for now- but what if something came to light about the nature of how light behaves when travelling large distances for example? Its a big what if but ....what if? Again its devils advocate and i am for current science 100%- i'm sure it has to do with my minds inability to understand the big bang and its implications!:(

Beeker

rccaulfield wrote: »

Thanks Kevster- but again that comes back to the doppler effect which means that our whole theory of the big bang revolves around the premise that the doppler effect is fact. Which of course it is....for now- but what if something came to light about the nature of how light behaves when travelling large distances for example? Its a big what if but ....what if? Again its devils advocate and i am for current science 100%- i'm sure it has to do with my minds inability to understand the big bang and its implications!:(

Thats just it.."the what if" question. The beauty of science is it is always asking "What if" and is willing to change it's thinking and theories based on new information and understanding. The big bank theory is jusr that a "Theory". It's a very compelling theory backed up by a lot of observation and research. It explains what we observe but leaves a lot of unanswered questions. What happened before?....What caused it?....as ynotdu asked what is it expanding it to?
I wish I knew the answeres to these questions but I don't. The great thing is that we have the ability to ask and the ability to work out the answers. We as a species are on the verge of discovering great truths in the universe and our place in it. Thanks to science and our desire for new information we stand a chance of answering some if not all of the "Big" questions.

wylo

ynotdu wrote: »

both are equally 'unprovable' yet i find myself being brought back towards considering a 'Creator'of some type from this thread.

Its fairly intense reading and its a topic that melts my brain to think about. Like him, the concept of a universe or 'something' having always existed is extremely frustrating but something I think I must accept.
I have not believed in a god since my teens. While I rarely mention this to anyone and rarely 'preach' my atheism, the one subject that makes me question my belief or non belief rather, is the creation of the universe.

wylo

ynotdu wrote: »

Did you ever feel that our known universe is just a 'fish-bowl' in a much larger scheme of things,i know i do!

I share this belief too, the universe may be just another spec in the vastness that is what would seem like an infinite existence. just like our planet is to the universe.

poppyvalley

MooseJam wrote: »

There was nothing, is it possible for the human mind to picture nothing, no time no space, usually when we picture nothing we imagine an absence of things but an empty void where things could be, can you imagine a total nothing where even nothing itself doesn't exist.

It's hard to put it into words does anybody know what i'm getting at ?

oh i know how your thinking. mindblowing stuff. We'll NEVER get answers, in fact the more answers the more questions. Quantum Physics may shed some light eventually,but i dont profess 2 know anything about this subject 'cept a little bit bout black holes i gleaned from reading Stephen Hawking. Thats where we're all heading.....Big bang and then it starts all over again.....theoretically

MooseJam

Can anyone tell me how we can look back billions of years, we were part of the big bang so why didn't all the light pass us by

poppyvalley

MooseJam wrote: »

There was nothing, is it possible for the human mind to picture nothing, no time no space, usually when we picture nothing we imagine an absence of things but an empty void where things could be, can you imagine a total nothing where even nothing itself doesn't exist.

It's hard to put it into words does anybody know what i'm getting at ?

dark energy, dark matter,...got it?

ynotdu

wylo wrote: »

Its fairly intense reading and its a topic that melts my brain to think about. Like him, the concept of a universe or 'something' having always existed is extremely frustrating but something I think I must accept.
I have not believed in a god since my teens. While I rarely mention this to anyone and rarely 'preach' my atheism, the one subject that makes me question my belief or non belief rather, is the creation of the universe.

but even 'Always' means there is time:eek:

*pulls hair out*

ynotdu

MooseJam wrote: »

Can anyone tell me how we can look back billions of years, we were part of the big bang so why didn't all the light pass us by

Well because We can see the light that is 'expanding' away from our posistion in our known universe,if the BB theory is correct it does not mean Earth was at the centre of it.......................

Beeker

ynotdu wrote: »

Well because We can see the light that is 'expanding' away from our posistion in our known universe,if the BB theory is correct it does not mean Earth was at the centre of it.......................

In fact every point in the Universe was at the centre of it

extremebogman

MooseJam wrote: »

Can anyone tell me how we can look back billions of years, we were part of the big bang so why didn't all the light pass us by

Part of it is the Cosmic Background Radiation that was mentioned earlier. It was predicted as a theory many years ago. (my understanding is basic, don't anyone hesitate to correct me) It is light from the 300,000 years after the beginning of the universe which has gone to a much higher wavelength and is now not on the visible spectrum. It was first observed by someone who wasn't actually looking for it earlier in the last century.

In the 90's a satellite found a variance in the cosmic background radiation for different parts of the world. This proved that areas in the early universe had different densities.

Anyway the original question about what came before the big bang, Simon Singh in his book said it was the same sort of question to ask 'what is north of the North Pole?'

B.T.W. the book is called Big Bang, probably a bit basic for some of you nerds intellectuals but he is a great writer, and gives metaphors to explain things.