TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- I'm a believer in an expanding universe, but...

I'm a believer in an expanding universe, but...

the size of a marble to greater than the size of all observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second??? I mean that would be multiple times the speed of light, no? Forgive me if I'm not jumping on board right away with this theory. Still interesting though.

Expanding Universe?

quote:

E-Mail This StoryPrintable Version Evidence for Universe Expansion Found , Mar. 16, 2006 (AP) Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second. The discovery is the first direct evidence to support the two-decade-old theory that the universe went through what is called inflation. It also helps explain how matter eventually clumped together into planets, stars and galaxies in a universe that began as a remarkably smooth, superhot soup. "It's giving us our first clues about how inflation took place," said Michael Turner, assistant director for mathematics and physical sciences at the National Science Foundation. "This is absolutely amazing." Researchers found the evidence for inflation by looking at a faint glow that permeates the universe. That glow, known as the cosmic microwave background, was produced when the universe was about 300,000 years old _ long after inflation had done its work. But just as a fossil tells a paleontologist about long-extinct life, the pattern of light in the cosmic microwave background offers clues about what came before it. Of specific interest to physicists are subtle brightness variations that give images of the microwave background a lumpy appearance. Physicists presented new measurements of those variations during a news conference at Princeton University. The measurements were made by a spaceborne instrument called the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe, or WMAP, launched by NASA in 2001. Earlier studies of WMAP data have determined that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, give or take a few hundred thousand years. WMAP also measured variations in the cosmic microwave background so huge that they stretch across the entire sky. Those earlier observations are strong indicators of inflation, but no smoking gun, said Turner, who was not involved in the research. The new analysis looked at variations in the microwave background over smaller patches of sky _ only billions of light-years across, instead of hundreds of billions. Without inflation, the brightness variations over small patches of the sky would be the same as those observed over larger areas of the heavens. But the researchers found considerable differences in the brightness variations. "The data favors inflation," said Charles Bennett, a Johns Hopkins University physicist who announced the discovery. He was joined by two Princeton colleagues, Lyman Page and David Spergel, who also contributed to the research. The physicists said small lumps in the microwave background began during inflation. Those lumps eventually coalesced into stars, galaxies and planets. The measurements are scheduled to be published in a future issue of the Astrophysical Journal. MMVI The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Re: I'm a believer in an expanding universe, but...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka the size of a marble to greater than the size of all observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second??? I mean that would be multiple times the speed of light, no? Forgive me if I'm not jumping on board right away with this theory. Still interesting though. Expanding Universe?

Why do you hate the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe? The universe should have put Volker in charge. He would have licked that inflation in no time at all.

Re: Re: I'm a believer in an expanding universe, but...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Why do you hate the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe? The universe should have put Volker in charge. He would have licked that inflation in no time at all.

Haha!

Sure, but in a Volker universe, we'd all still be swimming in a black hole of primordial sludge! Volker is not a Big Bang kind of guy.

Brian Greene explained it pretty nicely in his book "The Fabric of the Cosmos." If I get a chance, I'll dig it out and type the passage.

Ok, in a nutshell, to the best of my understanding:


Newtonian physics tell us that gravitational force between objects is dependent on two things: the mass of the objects, and the distance between them. The closer and bigger they are, the more their gravitational force will be.

Einstein later proved that gravity is dependent on two other factors: energy (such as heat) and pressure. He also discovered that in certain situations, there exists the possibility for negative pressure, meaning that the pressure would exert a repulsive force of gravity. However, for gravity to actually be repulsive instead of attractive, the negative pressure force would have to overcome the other three gravitational forces of mass, distance, and energy. But, for ordinary matter and in every day conditions, the pressure variable is insignificant compaired to those of mass and distance (energy is too), thus amount of gravitational repulse exerted by a negative pressure force would be negligible. In other words, it would take a lot of negative pressure to overcome the ordinary attraction of gravity, and make it actually push away instead of pull.

Gravity is actually the weakest of all the natural forces (the fact that a small magnet will stick to the fridge instead of falling demonstrates this). But during the time before the big bang, gravity was the dominant force. You must understand, when you have the ENTIRE universe squished into the size of a marble, the density, mass, and energy within this marble become so great that they are completely inconceivable.

You also have a Higgs field within this marble that violently fluctuates in intensity from all of the enormous forces inside. Now, a few decades ago, a couple of scientists observed that when the energy of a Higgs field hits a certain point, perfectly balanced, it will exert a negative pressure force. Now, imagine a bowl with a sewing needle standing straight up in the middle. Within this bowl is a small ball that bounces around and does not stop. Imagine if it were to bounce directly onto the point of that needle, so that it was perfectly balanced on that needle (not impaled on it). It would be an incredibly precise landing, to say the least. That's sort of what the Higgs field is like. Once it reaches that perfect balanced intensity, right in the middle, it exerts a negative pressure. Of course, the ball does not stop bouncing, so it only lands on the needle for a very brief moment. In other words, the fluctuating Higgs field will only reach that plateau and exert a negative force for a very brief moment before it stops.

These scientists found that the Higgs field can fluctuate as quickly as every 10^(-35) seconds (which you could say is a trillion-trillionth of a second). They also realized that when it does happen to land on this plateau, the negative pressure it creates is nearly 10^100 times greater than Einstein predicted. That is an ENORMOUS force.

So basically, in the beginning of the universe, you have such extreme energies within this marble that they create an extremely strong Higgs field, that fluctuates at an extremely high rate. When it happens, to land on that plateau....

BOOM

You get a ridiculously strong, repulsive gravitational force that lasts for a fraction of a fraction of a second.



I hope that makes sense. I actually had my own physics exam today and have been working on it since, so my brain is fried. Not only that, my knowledge of physics is nowhere near that level yet, so I've pretty much had to wing this explanation as best I can from quickly reading this section of the book. So forgive me if it's hard to follow...

well it made sense, but that doesnt mean i understood it very well i still dont understand how the bang could travel so much faster than the speed of light its ridiculous?

quote:

Originally posted by nrjizer Ok, in a nutshell, to the best of my understanding: Newtonian physics tell us that gravitational force between objects is dependent on two things: the mass of the objects, and the distance between them. The closer and bigger they are, the more their gravitational force will be. Einstein later proved that gravity is dependent on two other factors: energy (such as heat) and pressure. He also discovered that in certain situations, there exists the possibility for negative pressure, meaning that the pressure would exert a repulsive force of gravity. However, for gravity to actually be repulsive instead of attractive, the negative pressure force would have to overcome the other three gravitational forces of mass, distance, and energy. But, for ordinary matter and in every day conditions, the pressure variable is insignificant compaired to those of mass and distance (energy is too), thus amount of gravitational repulse exerted by a negative pressure force would be negligible. In other words, it would take a lot of negative pressure to overcome the ordinary attraction of gravity, and make it actually push away instead of pull. Gravity is actually the weakest of all the natural forces (the fact that a small magnet will stick to the fridge instead of falling demonstrates this). But during the time before the big bang, gravity was the dominant force. You must understand, when you have the ENTIRE universe squished into the size of a marble, the density, mass, and energy within this marble become so great that they are completely inconceivable. You also have a Higgs field within this marble that violently fluctuates in intensity from all of the enormous forces inside. Now, a few decades ago, a couple of scientists observed that when the energy of a Higgs field hits a certain point, perfectly balanced, it will exert a negative pressure force. Now, imagine a bowl with a sewing needle standing straight up in the middle. Within this bowl is a small ball that bounces around and does not stop. Imagine if it were to bounce directly onto the point of that needle, so that it was perfectly balanced on that needle (not impaled on it). It would be an incredibly precise landing, to say the least. That's sort of what the Higgs field is like. Once it reaches that perfect balanced intensity, right in the middle, it exerts a negative pressure. Of course, the ball does not stop bouncing, so it only lands on the needle for a very brief moment. In other words, the fluctuating Higgs field will only reach that plateau and exert a negative force for a very brief moment before it stops. These scientists found that the Higgs field can fluctuate as quickly as every 10^(-35) seconds (which you could say is a trillion-trillionth of a second). They also realized that when it does happen to land on this plateau, the negative pressure it creates is nearly 10^100 times greater than Einstein predicted. That is an ENORMOUS force. So basically, in the beginning of the universe, you have such extreme energies within this marble that they create an extremely strong Higgs field, that fluctuates at an extremely high rate. When it happens, to land on that plateau.... BOOM You get a ridiculously strong, repulsive gravitational force that lasts for a fraction of a fraction of a second. I hope that makes sense. I actually had my own physics exam today and have been working on it since, so my brain is fried. Not only that, my knowledge of physics is nowhere near that level yet, so I've pretty much had to wing this explanation as best I can from quickly reading this section of the book. So forgive me if it's hard to follow...

That's really interesting. In the same breath, do you ever feel like a lot of this science sounds kind of like BS? I mean, on the one hand you the Law of Conservation of Matter which clearly states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed in the universe. It can change form (solid/liquid/gas), or even convert into energy (E=MC^2), though not 100% efficiently. In the same breath, I can look at planet earth and without question know that it could never, not in a billion years by any method I am aware of, be compressed into something the size of a marble! And that's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the universe in the very most! Either we're talking about a really big marble or something doesn't quite add up!

I've also never heard of a Higgs Field before. Is that theoretical?

Then again, as I think this through a bit as I type...

It's possible that 99.99999% of the matter in the universe prior to the Big Bang existed in the form of pure energy--and I have no idea, but somehow was "reverse-vonverted" back into matter during the bang, exploding outward at a virtually immeasureable rate. This doesn't seem like the likeliest of outcomes though, so I propose something different...

Could it be that the secret is to think about it at a micro- level. Hell, a nano- level, no at the atomic level... Anyone who's taken a basic chemistry class knows that at the atomic level, the relative space between the electrons and the nucleus is itself somewhat massive (though at the atomic level). Imagine if all of that space at the atomic level could be compressed, filling all of that empty space, creating a mega-compressed piece of "matter", sitting in a resting state, in molecular harmony. Then suppose there's this Higgs Field you described. If it is any sort of force acting at a near singular point against the "marble", it's concentration at that point would be incredibly repulsive, likely setting off a massive chain reaction unlike anything ever observed by anyone. The force would cause the ball to shatter and for atoms to expand instantly, occupying a near infinite amount of space in the blink of an eye. Boom. Big Bang.

Either that, or God spanked that marble with a louisville slugger and shattered the mother****** all over the place.

Anyway, interesting reply, thanks for making my brain stir.

Why are we wasting all this money studying space, when we know everything came from "Intelligent Design".

Re: Re: Re: I'm a believer in an expanding universe, but...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Haha! Sure, but in a Volker universe, we'd all still be swimming in a black hole of primordial sludge! Volker is not a Big Bang kind of guy.

LOL.....i love geek humor.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well it made sense, but that doesnt mean i understood it very well i still dont understand how the bang could travel so much faster than the speed of light its ridiculous?

I got this from another forum:

quote:

Inflation was not limited to the speed of light, because it is not movement in space; it is the expansion of space itself. Therefore, the size of the universe was able to increase at a much greater rate than the speed of light. [...] Take a balloon and draw a bunch of dots on it. Then blow it up. The surface of the balloon is like the universe - the area between the dots is empty space which appears during inflation. The dots will move away from one another, even though they're not 'really' moving on the surface of the balloon.

In other words, the matter (or "energy" to be more precise) didn't really move at faster than the speed of light - in fact, it didn't really move at all. The big bang was more an expansion in the size of space than an expansion of matter into space. Some of this shit is really hard to conceptualise because we can't really think in greater than 3 dimensions, but I think that's basically the gist of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade In other words, the matter (or "energy" to be more precise) didn't really move at faster than the speed of light - in fact, it didn't really move at all. The big bang was more an expansion in the size of space than an expansion of matter into space. Some of this shit is really hard to conceptualise because we can't really think in greater than 3 dimensions, but I think that's basically the gist of it.

ah, ok. thanks

fuck i wish i was smarter. this area of science is fvcking cool.

what then would have limited that initial inflation then? (energy? gravity? tathi's mums balls?) if the universe is still expanding, that initial bang obviously stopped somewhere, with a residual expansiion??

picturing nothing, then within a fraction of a second a massive universe, kind've boggles the mind without thinking about a higher power maybe coz im a luddite

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka That's really interesting. In the same breath, do you ever feel like a lot of this science sounds kind of like BS? I mean, on the one hand you the Law of Conservation of Matter which clearly states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed in the universe. It can change form (solid/liquid/gas), or even convert into energy (E=MC^2), though not 100% efficiently.

Nah, it does convert 100% efficiently, it's just that you can't harness it all. From a thermodynamical viewpoint, energy is composed of exergy and anergy, where exergy is the observable energy that you can use and anergy is more or less energy waste. So if you're just looking at exergy then it's not 100% efficient, but if you add up both exergy and anergy, then it is.

quote:

In the same breath, I can look at planet earth and without question know that it could never, not in a billion years by any method I am aware of, be compressed into something the size of a marble! And that's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the universe in the very most! Either we're talking about a really big marble or something doesn't quite add up!

Still, you have neutron stars whose density is high enough that a marble-sized block of it is just about as heavy as the moon.

quote:

I've also never heard of a Higgs Field before. Is that theoretical?

Hm, I think they managed to experimentally confirm it, but I'm not quite certain.

quote:

Then again, as I think this through a bit as I type... It's possible that 99.99999% of the matter in the universe prior to the Big Bang existed in the form of pure energy--and I have no idea, but somehow was "reverse-vonverted" back into matter during the bang, exploding outward at a virtually immeasureable rate. This doesn't seem like the likeliest of outcomes though, so I propose something different...

It is also possible that a lot of it didn't exist at all, and that it was (is) being created as a byproduct of inflation.

quote:

Could it be that the secret is to think about it at a micro- level. Hell, a nano- level, no at the atomic level... Anyone who's taken a basic chemistry class knows that at the atomic level, the relative space between the electrons and the nucleus is itself somewhat massive (though at the atomic level). Imagine if all of that space at the atomic level could be compressed, filling all of that empty space, creating a mega-compressed piece of "matter", sitting in a resting state, in molecular harmony. Then suppose there's this Higgs Field you described. If it is any sort of force acting at a near singular point against the "marble", it's concentration at that point would be incredibly repulsive, likely setting off a massive chain reaction unlike anything ever observed by anyone. The force would cause the ball to shatter and for atoms to expand instantly, occupying a near infinite amount of space in the blink of an eye. Boom. Big Bang.

That compression is not really enough to fill up all the matter in the universe. Removing empty space from between the atoms is what happens in a neutron star. Electrons fall down into the nucleus of the atom and combine with protons to become neutrons, then they all fall on top of each other and you basically end up with a huge atom-like object. But by using that you can only reduce a sun-sized object to a mountain-sized object, you can't go any further.

But if the object is big enough, it turns into a black hole, and compresses further into a singularity, but then it's really no longer made up of atoms or anything, it's just an infinitely small and infinitely dense point in space. Here's a quick link about it all.
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberi...eFormation.html

that DOES seem like breaking the rules. If it indeed was faster then light, that would mean the universe's mass was infinite ?

quote:

Originally posted by Shamen DJ's Why are we wasting all this money studying space, when we know everything came from "Intelligent Design".

lol

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I got this from another forum: In other words, the matter (or "energy" to be more precise) didn't really move at faster than the speed of light - in fact, it didn't really move at all. The big bang was more an expansion in the size of space than an expansion of matter into space. Some of this shit is really hard to conceptualise because we can't really think in greater than 3 dimensions, but I think that's basically the gist of it.

that seems to explain it, thanks

quote:

Originally posted by stren that DOES seem like breaking the rules. If it indeed was faster then light, that would mean the universe's mass was infinite ? lol that seems to explain it, thanks

Well, renegade answered that part, but anyway, if an object would move faster than light, it wouldn't have infinite mass. Infinite mass would only be if the object would move at exactly the speed of light. Now, if it would move faster, the mass would be an imaginary number, because you'd divide by a square root of a negative number. Now what exactly imaginary mass would be in a real world, I have no idea...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.