Triangulation Of The Big Bang

[joekgamer]

Would it be possible to figure out where the Big Bang occurred? I was thinking that using the distances between one star and two others (so with stars A-B-C in a line in that order, the distances used would be AB and BC), it could be possible to (after figuring out which direction the Big Bang happened) figure out the location of the Big Bang.

[JMJones0424]

The universe has no center towards which we can triangulate the point at which the big bang happened. Every point of space originates from the big bang, and every observer in the universe appears to be at the center of expansion. Please refer to Ned Wright's excellent cosmology FAQ, specifically Where was the center of the Big Bang?

[joekgamer]

Interesting. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Deepwater6]

I understand about the universe has no point at which to triangulate it but, I have read that the universe is like a balloon with everything on the surface of the balloon. If that is the case then is there any way to tell where the balloon was located before it started to inflate? thx

,

 

 

 

 

ont="Century Gothic"][/font]

The universe has no center towards which we can triangulate the point at which the big bang happened. Every point of space originates from the big bang, and every observer in the universe appears to be at the center of expansion. Please refer to Ned Wright's excellent cosmology FAQ, specifically Where was the center of the Big Bang?

[JMJones0424]

I understand about the universe has no point at which to triangulate it but, I have read that the universe is like a balloon with everything on the surface of the balloon. If that is the case then is there any way to tell where the balloon was located before it started to inflate? thx

 

No. The ballon analogy is a flawed analogy. It is good at showing how every observer in the universe observes all other points receding from them, however it is flawed in (at least) two ways:

1) The entire three spatial dimensions of the universe are represented by the two dimensional "skin" of the ballon. That there is volume inside the ballon is a reflection of the inadequecies of the analogy.

2) When we imagine a ballon, we imagine it amongst other things, or from the outside looking down on the ballon. Using the analogy correctly, every observer would be located on the skin of the ballon, and the skin of the ballon would be all that exists.

 

Unlike an expanding ballon, an expanding explosion, or any expanding thing that we come across in normal life, the universe has no center. Assuming current mainstream theories are valid, every point in the universe was in the same place at the Big Bang. It is therefore only correct to say that the universe is the center of the universe, or that all observers appear to be at the center of the universe.

[Deepwater6]

Thank you - I've never heard it described like that before. Do you think the size of our universe is distorted (larger) by reflections from whatever lies outside of it?

 

 

 

 

uote name='JMJones0424' timestamp='1301448520' post='306007']

No. The ballon analogy is a flawed analogy. It is good at showing how every observer in the universe observes all other points receding from them, however it is flawed in (at least) two ways:

1) The entire three spatial dimensions of the universe are represented by the two dimensional "skin" of the ballon. That there is volume inside the ballon is a reflection of the inadequecies of the analogy.

2) When we imagine a ballon, we imagine it amongst other things, or from the outside looking down on the ballon. Using the analogy correctly, every observer would be located on the skin of the ballon, and the skin of the ballon would be all that exists.

 

Unlike an expanding ballon, an expanding explosion, or any expanding thing that we come across in normal life, the universe has no center. Assuming current mainstream theories are valid, every point in the universe was in the same place at the Big Bang. It is therefore only correct to say that the universe is the center of the universe, or that all observers appear to be at the center of the universe.

[joekgamer]

Why would there be anything outside of the universe?

[sanctus]

Please define outside ;-)

 

The nature of space-time is not so well understood, outside our space-time means where there is not the space-time we know. So what does no space-time mean?

 

The best answer I heard is: space-time is where events can happen. This implies that one can never see outside spacce-time, because that means you get a photon from there, but emitting a photon is an event and therefore it is inside our space-time.

[joekgamer]

Think of formatting a hard drive/flash drive/etc. You need to have it 'encoded' in a certain way so that a computer knows what is where on it. Or try renaming a .jpg file into a .bmp file, then opening it. You will either get 1) an error message, or 2) a garbled mess of data. 'Outside of space' is like a 'nonformatted'/'incorrectly formatted' region on the hard drive/flash drive/etc. in that it cannot hold 'data' (mass/energy) in a way that 'the computer knows' (exists).

[Deepwater6]

I guess the Universe doesn't need anything outside of it, but following the rest of the known Universe I wouldn't think that it would change just because of a larger scale. I always assumed that everything has an "outside". This building is outside of me, Earth's atmosphere outside of that, and the solar system outside of that etc. I cannot fathom anything big enough to contain our Universe, but I would think something had to exist before there was a big bang. The thought of infinite "outsides" is where my mind breaks down and I get a headache.

 

 

 

Think of formatting a hard drive/flash drive/etc. You need to have it 'encoded' in a certain way so that a computer knows what is where on it. Or try renaming a .jpg file into a .bmp file, then opening it. You will either get 1) an error message, or 2) a garbled mess of data. 'Outside of space' is like a 'nonformatted'/'incorrectly formatted' region on the hard drive/flash drive/etc. in that it cannot hold 'data' (mass/energy) in a way that 'the computer knows' (exists).

[joekgamer]

Effectivly, there is no 'outside', because there is no 'where' for an outside to be. It is like asking, "What does purple smell like?" It doesn't make sense.

[Deepwater6]

OK, I can see your point, but how do we classify other dimensions? Are they all thought to be inside our Universe?

 

 

 

 

Effectivly, there is no 'outside', because there is no 'where' for an outside to be. It is like asking, "What does purple smell like?" It doesn't make sense.

[joekgamer]

The universe is made of every dimension. These dimensions are not places, but directions. The second is perpendicular to the first, the third to those two, a fourth to all three, a fifth to those four, and so on. So, extra spacial dimensions are not 'inside' or 'outside' the universe because they are the universe. It would be kind of like saying, "Is the house inside or outside of the house?"

[Deepwater6]

Very interesting, I'm new to this site and if these questions/answers have already come up I apologize. How many dimensions do you believe there are?

 

 

 

 

The universe is made of every dimension. These dimensions are not places, but directions. The second is perpendicular to the first, the third to those two, a fourth to all three, a fifth to those four, and so on. So, extra spacial dimensions are not 'inside' or 'outside' the universe because they are the universe. It would be kind of like saying, "Is the house inside or outside of the house?"

[joekgamer]

For now, three have been proven to exist, plus time. However, string theory shows 7-11 dimensions, depending on the theory (there are a few). M-theory gives 12.

[Deepwater6]

Aside from locating the Higgs Bosun particle what else are we hoping to learn from the Large Haldron Collider? From what I understand they are trying to recreate the conditions of the big bang. Is this huge project just to prove that theory, or are there other dicoveries expected to come from these experiments?

[Deepwater6]

Aside from finding the Higgs Bosun particle what else are we hoping to find with the Large Haldron Collider? From what I understand they are trying to recreate the conditions of the big bang on a tiny scale. Is that whole experiment to try and prove the big bang theory or are scientist's expecting much more information and practical uses from that experiment?

 

 

For now, three have been proven to exist, plus time. However, string theory shows 7-11 dimensions, depending on the theory (there are a few). M-theory gives 12.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Deepwater6