Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Nimos]

I don't understand how it is not expanding into anything? Is there a leading edge to the expanding universe containing the stars? Do you consider infinite space a vacuum?

I think space is infinite and that our Universe were created in it, there might even be other Universes expanding next to ours, however the distances between them might simply be so great that we will never know.

In regards to what causes Universes to be created, my own "best" theory is that whatever create them or make it possible is what I would call existences itself, whatever that might be . But this is just because, to me it seems to be the absolute most simple condition that anything can be in, because it is a binary state. Either something exists or it doesn't, there is no middle ground, meaning that existences itself, can't be created, either it is or it isn't. If that make sense. And since we exist....

So everything we observe and experience around us, is part of this existences and tells us what existences is capable of, but not what it, itself is.

 

[Salty Booger]

I agree with you.

For me, there is something about the expanding universe theory that causes me pause. I am hoping to learn more when someone explains that space itself is expanding, not into empty space, but space itself is being created from nothing. At least that is what I understand is the predominate position of science today. We shall see.

My last reading on the subject was that the laws of physics apply only within the confines of the Universe, but that was some time ago. I also read that had there been any variation in those laws, the Universe would be completely different than what we know today. What can I say? Life is incredible.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think space is infinite and that our Universe were created in it, there might even be other Universes expanding next to ours, however the distances between them might simply be so great that we will never know.

In regards to what causes Universes to be created, my own "best" theory is that whatever create them or make it possible is what I would call existences itself, whatever that might be . But this is just because, to me it seems to be the absolute most simple condition that anything can be in, because it is a binary state. Either something exists or it doesn't, there is no middle ground, meaning that existences itself, can't be created, either it is or it isn't. If that make sense. And since we exist....

So everything we observe and experience around us, is part of this existences and tells us what existences is capable of, but not what it, itself is.

Ok,I now better understand your conceptualization of space being infinite, you may be correct.

On the question of cause. it has occurred to me that the human mind appears to demand that everything that exists had a beginning. This is possibly correct, created things must have a beginning, but I am not so sure it applies to the whole. It seems to me possible that the universe as whole never had a beginning, it is eternal. Hard to image there was never a time when nothing existed, but that is my understanding. So all created things in the universe obviously must have had a beginning, but as existence itself, perhaps not so.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

My last reading on the subject was that the laws of physics apply only within the confines of the Universe, but that was some time ago. I also read that had there been any variation in those laws, the Universe would be completely different than what we know today. What can I say? Life is incredible.

Yes, to exist appears sort of miraculous to me, and is therefore the reason I really want to now what and who I am in the larger context of existence.

 

[Salty Booger]

Yes, to exist appears sort of miraculous to me, and is therefore the reason I really want to now what and who I am in the larger context of existence.

Some say we are life, which makes sense since our life disappears from the body when we die.

 

[Salty Booger]

@ben d

I am a little concern that my last post might have come across as a bit negative. It was just another way of looking at the question. If you can identify with the larger picture around you, then you understand your true nature, knowing that only the person dies, not the larger picture. I believe individuality (ego) serves a purpose, but it only lasts a lifetime.

 

[ChristineM]

There are several hypothesis of what the universe is expanding into but no one actually knows.

My guesses (and they are guesses) is that either

If our universe is unique then it is possible that it is creating space as it inflates or is inflating into existing i finite emptiness.

Or if our universe is one of many universes in a multiverse it is inflating into what ever all universes are in. There is actually tentative evidence for this scenario in the bruises on the CMB and the vast swathe of galaxies moving contrary to the general expansion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

@ben d

I am a little concern that my last post might have come across as a bit negative. It was just another way of looking at the question. If you can identify with the larger picture around you, then you understand your true nature, knowing that only the person dies, not the larger picture. I believe individuality (ego) serves a purpose, but it only lasts a lifetime.

Thank you for clarifying, I understand what you mean.

 

[gurudavid]

Good morning.

We have a point of view that expands the role of Nature to include the totality of creation.

We see that Nature uses Algorithm's for many different things and in many different ways.

We look for examples in our world to help us to see how Nature may work within this and any other universe.

For example; DNA creates the forms of living things. All living things use DNA. As an algorithm it makes sense for Nature to use this process for large scale replication and to use a spectrum of DNA to create many varieties from the same process.

We think that the Periodic Table is also interesting. In that the Quantum of matter defines that matter for our universe. For Nature to create other realities it would be simple for Nature to change the Quantum of matter. We look at the Periodic Table as a form of non organic Quantum DNA.

When you look into Quantum's they seem to be a form of perpetual energy that does not consume any energy to maintain its existence. Our view is that Nature may provide a clue in Stem Cells within DNA.

Our view is that Nature produces a form of energy that is adaptable like Stem Cells; we call this Genesis Energy. Genesis Energy is produced by matter and consumed by matter. As the energy is consumed it changes to the type of energy required.

Please bear in mind just how small the basic building blocks of matter really are and that we have no idea how many processes are used to layer and finally produce Atoms.

Our view is that Nature does not tend to waste energy so we wondered why everything in our universe moved. Nothing is actually stationary. Our view was that all the movement is being used to generate Genesis Energy and that this energy can move across realities.

We also think that this presents another view of what Gravity may be. In Nature things come together to make it easier to procreate and to feed. It would make sense if matter is simply another form of non organic DNA for it to follow a pattern of some sort. Larger concentrations of matter make it easier to produce Genesis Energy and to also feed on Genesis Energy. For example; look at the actual process that we use to generate electricity with the relationship between Magnetism and Electricity.

Our view is that the Universe is more dynamic than people realise and that there are more possibilities.

Humans have only observed Space for a limited time and still do not understand how something simple like our rotation and cycles within the Milky Way affects things like Ice Ages or Near Extinction Evens; of which science tells us they have evidence of 5 such extintion level occurrences.

Have a good day.

 

[PureX]

I don't understand how it is not expanding into anything? Is there a leading edge to the expanding universe containing the stars? Do you consider infinite space a vacuum?

The universe is, by definition, all that exists. So, nothing exists "beyond it" for it to expand, into. Your question is fundamentally illogical. The spacetime of existence is increasing relative to our singular perspective. There is no "expanding into" anything.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are several hypothesis of what the universe is expanding into but no one actually knows.

My guesses (and they are guesses) is that either

If our universe is unique then it is possible that it is creating space as it inflates or is inflating into existing i(n)finite emptiness.

Or if our universe is one of many universes in a multiverse it is inflating into what ever all universes are in. There is actually tentative evidence for this scenario in the bruises on the CMB and the vast swathe of galaxies moving contrary to the general expansion.

Thank you ChristineM.

Of these possibilities, I have the most trouble trying to understand how space could be created from nothing.

And just a thought, in either of these expanding models, as expansion takes place, would the increasing distance between all points of the universe apply to the micro, eg. the hydrogen atoms of free space, I imagine it would have to?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The universe is, by definition, all that exists. So, nothing exists "beyond it" for it to expand, into. Your question is fundamentally illogical. The spacetime of existence is increasing relative to our singular perspective. There is no "expanding into" anything.

So do you think the concept of a multiverse illogical because the universe by definition is all there is, as you understand it?

Concerning the expansion of universe as you understand it, can you explain how the process of creating space from absolute nothing works?

And what is the shape of the universal volume of space that is increasing in time according to your understanding.?

And lastly, is the distance between the existing atoms of free space increasing as the universe expands?

 

[Clara Tea]

RESPONSE TO OTHERS:

I disagree with Polymath257 (who is a mathematician who studied the big bang and general relativity). He asserts that the universe is like a sphere that started expanding at pole, and will collapse back (the debunked "oscillating universe" theory). Rather, the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating with no sign that it will ever stop.

ANSWER:

DEFINITION OF EXPLOSION: A stick of dynamite on an indestructible chess board would splatter bits of explosive across the board.

UNIVERSE DIDN'T EXPLODE (CHESS BOARD EXPANDED): The board is called the metric. It is three dimensional. Those familiar with relativity speak of spacetime, but in this case, only space expands, not space and time..

Einstein once said that without matter and energy, space and time would not exist. So, outside of the metric, nothing exists, nothing can exist, time doesn't exist, and nothing from outside of the metric (the universe) can enter the universe.

Nothing can travel across the metric faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum). However, the metric can (and is) expanding so fast, that distant stars travel away faster than the speed of light (they are on the metric, and the metric is expanding faster than the speed of light).

Light from stars that are traveling away at nearly the speed of light have a Doppler red shift. When they exceed the speed of light, no light is seen from them (literally the expansion of the metric is outpacing light itself).

WHY IS THE UNIVERSE ACCELERATING?

No one knows, for sure, what causes the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Using Friedman's Equation, most physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists assume (unscientific high speculation) that there must be some undiscovered dark energy doing it. I would not disagree, nor would I agree (and I refrain from speculation, though would support experiments to look at the idea). That dark energy is though to have antigravity (repulsive) properties. I'd sooner believe that empty free space has antigravity. CERN (subatomic particle accelerator in Switzerland) has an experiment to see if perhaps antimatter exploded in front of the matter universe, and is now exerting anti-gravity. To this end, in the year 2020, they have suspended a subatomic antiparticle in a magnetic field, removed the field and timed its drop (to see if antimatter has the same type of gravity as matter). The results are that antimatter's gravity "so far appears" to be the same as matter's gravity. Thus, it is unlikely that antimatter is the cause of antigravity which might cause the expansion of the universe.

As expansion of the metric approaches the speed of light, the light doppler shifts. At the speed of light, the doppler shift makes the light have zero frequency (so zero energy since energy is h(nu) where nu is the frequency). When light is traveling away at faster than the speed of light, the frequency doesn't drop to negative, it merely disappears entirely from the observer (still presumably emanating from the distant star as always).

I don't really know what happens to the energy of gravity as it approaches the speed of light. However, the effects of gravity can only travel at the speed of light as well. If two companion stars orbited each other, we might be able to detect the slight change in gravity as one comes closer than the other. But if stars on opposite sides of the metric (where the metric is traveling away faster than the speed of light), the gravity would suddenly appear to vanish at the speed of light, and not be present beyond the speed of light). So perhaps part of the mystery of the accelerating universe might be that stars cannot sense the gravity of a mass that is traveling away from it faster than the speed of light.

WHAT HAPPENS TO TIME AS THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS EXCEEDED?

According to Special Relativity (of Einstein), time slows at relativistic speeds (that is, speeds close to the speed of light). As the metric expands, and that expansions accelerates, stars on the opposite edges of the metric seem to be going away from each other faster than the speed of light. So, what happens to time? Does time run backwards? If so, it would stand to reason that the universe reverses in time to the beginning. Could this be why the universe accelerates?

God said that he was the alpha (beginning of the Greek alphabet) and the omega (end of the Greek alphabet).

GOD'S TIME IS NOT OUR TIME:

Theists say that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. Scientists say that the universe was created 13.4 billion years ago. But scientists who study Special Relativity also say that there is no absoluted time (that is, time for God is not time for us). General Relativity shows that time slows in strong gravity (like Quasars, which also have high Doppler red shifts from the gravity), and Special Relativity shows that time also slows at fast speeds. So, science and Religion could both be right.

 

[Native]

I would like to learn what others believe the big bang universe is expanding into? I only want to talk with those who are prepared to explain their own understanding directly, not second parties, and I don't intend to read articles by others that may be posted or linked to on this thread. .Thank you for your understanding.

The idea of a Big Bang is really pure speculative nonsense.

It´s assumed beginning takes place somewhere in the Universe and expands in the Universe - which doesn´t say anything other that there is an Universe.

This speculation is just an ad hoc macro cosmic addition to the other assumed idea of the Nebular Hypothesis.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The idea of a Big Bang is really pure speculative nonsense.

It´s assumed beginning takes place somewhere in the Universe and expands in the Universe - which doesn´t say anything other that there is an Universe.

This speculation is just an ad hoc macro cosmic addition to the other assumed idea of the Nebular Hypothesis.

You may be right, the big bang is still imho a working hypothesis.

Oh and I think that the beginning of the big bang universe to the understanding of some, PureX above for example, does not occur anywhere in the universe, but occur it does from absolute nothing by creating space and then continues to expand the volume of space by creating additional space from absolute nothing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I disagree with Polymath257 (who is a mathematician who studied the big bang and general relativity). He asserts that the universe is like a sphere that started expanding at pole, and will collapse back (the debunked "oscillating universe" theory). Rather, the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating with no sign that it will ever stop.

Hi Clara Tea, I think Polymath257 was only using the toy sphere model as a way of explanation of certain aspects of the actual big bang universal theory, not as an actual model of the big bang universe.

 

[Native]

On the question of cause. it has occurred to me that the human mind appears to demand that everything that exists had a beginning.

Precisely Even in the Bible, such a "beginning" is described.

But other religions have it that there was no beginning and there is no end and that everything undergoes eternal changes of formation, dissolution and re-formation, quite contrary to the modern BB speculation.

(The BB idea also has an intellectual connection to the literal interpretation of the biblical creation story and as such, the BB idea is a kind of a religous dogma - and hugely worshipped in modern cosmology and astrophysics)

Besides this, ancient mythical specific descriptions of a creation didn´t concern the entire Universe, but specifially the ancient observable part of the local Universe, our Milky Way and its contents, of course including the Solar System.

 

[ChristineM]

the debunked "oscillating universe" theory

The oscillating universe universe theory was not debunked but superseded by the BB theory. In recent years more and more cosmologists have begun to take the oscillating universe (or big bounce) seriously again and several of the current hypothesis are based on this model

 

[ChristineM]

The idea of a Big Bang is really pure speculative nonsense speculation.

Fixed

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Precisely Even in the Bible, such a "beginning" is described.

But other religions have it that there was no beginning and there is no end and that everything undergoes eternal changes of formation, dissolution and re-formation, quite contrary to the modern BB speculation.

(The BB idea also has an intellectual connection to the literal interpretation of the biblical creation story and as such, the BB idea is a kind of a religous dogma - and hugely worshipped in modern cosmology and astrophysics)

Besides this, ancient mythical descriptions of a creation didn´t concern the entire Universe, but specifially the ancient observable part of the local Universe, our Milky Way and its contents, of course including the Solar System.

Thank you Native, I mostly agree.