Early universe questions, a merger of threads

Discussions ranging from space technology, near-earth and solar system missions, to efforts to understand the large-scale structure of the cosmos.

Into what is the universe expanding?

Postby Alan McDougall on May 13th, 2017, 10:16 am 

Into what is the universe expanding?

We know it is expanding but into what?

Is space infinite and eternal?

Or is the universe just everything expanding?
Alan McDougall
Banned User
 
Posts: 137
Joined: 07 Dec 2010
Location: Johannsburg South Africa


Re: Into what is the universe expanding?

Postby Braininvat on May 13th, 2017, 11:38 am 

This is a question that will take some review of cosmological theory and research, so I moved it to the A&C forum. Feel free to browse threads in this forum, or maybe use our search engine on "universe expanding," or "space unbounded" or similar. We have threads on this, but they may require the search engine to find them.

NOTE: This is a merger of 3 related threads.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5765
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Into what is the universe expanding?

Postby DragonFly on May 13th, 2017, 1:06 pm 

Well, it's not expanding into 'Nothing', since 'Nothing' has no 'there' nor any other properties. Nor, then, can space be used akin to 'Nothing' for what it is expanded into.

So, either space is something and thus already included in the totality of the universe or space doesn't exist and is not sitting around to be filled.

Einstein's view of no space is that all is field, which accords with 'Nothing' not even being possible as spacers between things. Then the universe is full of itself, seemingly only able to do something like ripple, although we wonder what gives way to make room for that.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Into what is the universe expanding?

Postby Alan McDougall on May 13th, 2017, 2:03 pm 

DragonFly » May 13th, 2017, 7:06 pm wrote:Well, it's not expanding into 'Nothing', since 'Nothing' has no 'there' nor any other properties. Nor, then, can space be used akin to 'Nothing' for what it is expanded into.

So, either space is something and thus already included in the totality of the universe or space doesn't exist and is not sitting around to be filled.

Einstein's view of no space is that all is field, which accords with 'Nothing' not even being possible as spacers between things. Then the universe is full of itself, seemingly only able to do something like ripple, although we wonder what gives way to make room for that.


Alan Guth theoretical physicist theory of inflation is the after the big bang the singularity expanded at a much faster pace than even light and then stopped to allow for the creation of atoms etc

But what about the void of space beyond this, empty space has zero mass and thus there was nothing to stop it expanding into infinity, followed of course by the substance we call space time which is not infinite in size?
Alan McDougall
Banned User
 
Posts: 137
Joined: 07 Dec 2010
Location: Johannsburg South Africa


Early universe questions, a merger of threads

Postby Alan McDougall on May 13th, 2017, 2:18 pm 

Where is all the natural antimatter of the universe?

The expected scenario was that there was an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the early universe and they should have destroyed each other leaving just a hot gamma ray lifeless universe.

But luckily this did not happen so that allows me to write this question as a living entity
Alan McDougall
Banned User
 
Posts: 137
Joined: 07 Dec 2010
Location: Johannsburg South Africa


The link between time gravity and mass?

Postby Alan McDougall on May 13th, 2017, 2:30 pm 

Given the infinite mass and gravity field at the moment of the big bang singularity time should never emerged from it primordial state and created our universe.

We know as a fact that the stronger a gravity field is relative to other lesser gravity fields means that time 'flows slower in the more powerful gravity field than it does in a lesser gravity field.

My bad logic and lack of scientific acumen tells me all these fields should have balanced out or cancelled each other, keeping the big bang singularity static forever

However, we know this was not the case so can more knowledgeable members explain this apparent contradiction?

Alan
Alan McDougall
Banned User
 
Posts: 137
Joined: 07 Dec 2010
Location: Johannsburg South Africa


Re: Into what is the universe expanding?

Postby DragonFly on May 13th, 2017, 2:53 pm 

No voids, no zilches, no emptiness, no 'Nothing'… We have to work from that Truth.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: The link between time gravity and mass?

Postby DragonFly on May 13th, 2017, 2:58 pm 

There's no Infinite extent of anything, since it cannot be had all at once as completed. So, if something gets more and more dense there is a limit since there can be no infinite density, thus a "bang"; otherwise it would just stay there and keep on absorbing density.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Where is all the natural antimatter of the universe?

Postby DragonFly on May 13th, 2017, 3:07 pm 

Since there are now something like a billion photons for every proton, this tells us there were a billion annihalations of pairs for every photon left over, although I don't know why one would be left. We should also consider that inflation, if so, was so quick that many particles of pairs were driven apart before they could annihalate.

It's estimated that there would have been 2x10**85 particles in the universe, but due to annihilations I suppose we're down to 2x10*76.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Early universe questions, a merger of threads

Postby Dave_Oblad on May 13th, 2017, 5:53 pm 

Hi Alan,

1. Time is literally Distance (time as we perceive it.. doesn't exist).
2. The Big Bang was the literal definition of 4D Distance.
3. This Distance was filled with Chaotic Relationships.
4. Energy then emerged when Chaos settled into Patterns (Fields).
5. Particles didn't exist until these Fields settled into Relational Patterns.
6. Matter didn't emerge until much further when these Particle Fields settled into Geometries.
7. Gravity only emerged once Matter could apply Curvature to the Fields.

Thus the Big Bang didn't expand into some pre-existing Void or Space.
The Universe is a Container and all that Exists is relative to what exists inside that Container.
Outside that Growing Container is Non-Existence.
Time (as we construe it to be) only Exists within a said Container.

There could be an Infinite Number of these Independent Containers.
Since their Existence is just Mathematical, they don't take up any Real Space.
There is no such thing as Real Space or Real Time outside each Container (Universe).

My only deviation from conventional Science is the concept that Energy emerged from Chaos.
That all the Energy of the Current Universe was NOT compressed into some original Singularity artifact.

Technically, a Singularity is not an Object. It is a breakdown in Mathematics due to Infinities.

Does that help?

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Early universe questions, a merger of threads

Postby Alan McDougall on May 13th, 2017, 11:03 pm 

Dave_Oblad » May 13th, 2017, 11:53 pm wrote:Hi Alan,

1. Time is literally Distance (time as we perceive it.. doesn't exist).
2. The Big Bang was the literal definition of 4D Distance.
3. This Distance was filled with Chaotic Relationships.
4. Energy then emerged when Chaos settled into Patterns (Fields).
5. Particles didn't exist until these Fields settled into Relational Patterns.
6. Matter didn't emerge until much further when these Particle Fields settled into Geometries.
7. Gravity only emerged once Matter could apply Curvature to the Fields.

Thus the Big Bang didn't expand into some pre-existing Void or Space.
The Universe is a Container and all that Exists is relative to what exists inside that Container.
Outside that Growing Container is Non-Existence.
Time (as we construe it to be) only Exists within a said Container.

There could be an Infinite Number of these Independent Containers.
Since their Existence is just Mathematical, they don't take up any Real Space.
There is no such thing as Real Space or Real Time outside each Container (Universe).

My only deviation from conventional Science is the concept that Energy emerged from Chaos.
That all the Energy of the Current Universe was NOT compressed into some original Singularity artifact.

Technically, a Singularity is not an Object. It is a breakdown in Mathematics due to Infinities.

Does that help?

Regards,
Dave :^)


Hi Dave,

You are right the primordial singularity was not an object, but something that we can only explain in an abstract way via the mathematical tools we understand and use. No one really knows what energy really is, we only know how to use it and what it does in a practical way of our lives

If we believe that the Big Bang model of creation, then we have to believe that unlike explosions e make out of the primordial explosion order emerged out of it and thus we debate it here in this forum

Remember what Robert Oppenheimer said after the first successful test of atomic bomb

"I have become death the destroyer of worlds"
Alan McDougall
Banned User
 
Posts: 137
Joined: 07 Dec 2010
Location: Johannsburg South Africa



Return to Astronomy & Cosmology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests