Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Bogus Big Bang Breakdown

I have a question based on this and another recent article, and this has actually been picking at my brain for quite some time, but only now have I thought to bring it up.

If this explosion occurred 13 billion years ago, when everything including us is supposed to be so packed together, and we are only seeing it now, how did we get 13 billion light years away from it in the first place if nothing is supposed to go faster than the speed of light?

The only way for us to get so far away from the "source" explosion (or anything near it like this explosion in the article) is to travel faster than the light that the explosion emitted. Then we have to somehow slow down so it can play catchup, then we look back and voila, we see that light catching up to us 13 billion years later. What?!

Additionally, for those who will say that the Big Bang was not a point source event, you are contradicting everything I've every read or seen in ever science journal, book, or show that discussed the Big Bang, because it always talks about how the universe was a tightly packed sphere of everything, so hot and dense that there weren't even separate forces. And then BOOM, the explosion happened, everything separated out, particles and forces formed, and eventually so did everything else, but it all came from a hot dense point source.

The more I apply logic, the more the Big Bang becomes unraveled and ridiculous. I hate the Big Bang.


Anonymous said...

Well, I am clearly NOT the expert on the subject, but allow me to make some statements that may ease your mind on why a subject which has overwhelming evidence supporting it has some flaws such as this.

To begin with, the question of 'how did something initially so small get so big' is related to two major things. First of all, the universe did not get created in an explosion, as is a common misconception. Space just started expanding REALLY, REALLY fast. The universe got bigger, essentially. Due to how we model the universe, the farthest we can see is therefore the light travel time to the beginning of the Universe.

How did some of these things get so far away from us? There was a period of superluminal expansion called inflation which is somewhat kinda handshakily explained by symmetry breaking. This also explains why the Universe appears mostly isotropic. So that gamma ray burst happens, 13 BILLION years in the past, and is 'slowed' essentially by the expansion of the Universe (after inflation, mind), and eventually, 13 billion years later, is detected by us.

Now, regarding the 'Big Bang not a point source event' is the result of ease of explanation. It's much easier to say 'there was a point source explosion' as opposed to saying 'the universe was very small and then started expanding.' Admittedly, the former description causes many problems, such as people assuming there is a center where the Big Bang happened.

Anonymous said...

Ok. I am definetly not an expert on space theroies, but I have some quarrels about the Big Bang. I love to look at the stars and always wonder about other beings in space on another planet. I check out, and everyday and I am very interested in the work that NASA and other countries are doing to return to the moon and go to other worlds. So I have to say that I have heard a lot about this topic. First of all, it is my opinion that there was NEVER a big bang that created the universe. What IF the universe has always been here to begin with? If the universe has always existed then the STUFF(elements) in the universe has always existed. We humans always think we have the answer to everything. We need to stop thinking this way. If we knew everything then we wouldn't be debating this idea of the big bang. If there was a big bang, what caused the universe to just suddenly explode faster than the speed of light and expand? I don't think we will ever know how the universe came into existance. The only things that we will possibly find out in our lifetime is how galaxies, planets, stars, ect, were created. Some of these things we are just beginning to understand. Why are we looking at how the universe started when we don't even know how the dinosaurs became extinct? There is a lot for us to learn about on our own planet and moon before we can do anything else in space travel. One thing we definetly need to understand is how our earth is warming and how we can stop this affect. If we don't understand global warming then 50 to 100 years from now, we will become extinct like the dinosaurs did. Our earth is fragile and people still don't get it. I drive down the road after the winter season and see garbage all over from people who don't care about our planet. Maybe we should learn to pick up after ourselves before putting more junk on our planet and around our planet. Earth's space has become a junk yard just like our landfills. We need clean energy and we needed it yesterday. Why can't these big oil companies invest most of their money in developing cheaper renewable energy? They will still make their profits. God I can go on for hours about this.

Roberto Heras said...

Here is a link that shows how the human brain interprets speed. I wonder if we are doing the same thing with light.

Casey Root said...

If two cars start driving in opposite directions at 60mph, after an hour they will be 120 miles apart. That doesn't mean that each car moved 120 miles, as you are implying.

Now add on to that the complication of having the roads actually expand (like space) and now your cars may be even further apart, yet with respect to their reference frame, the cars only traveled at 60mph.

Space expansion is not confined by relativity, anyway.

Anonymous said...

Ok. So what is space expansion confined by? I am adding to my post from earlier. To go along with your driving of cars, what if we are on the outer edge of the universe and the light that we saw from the gamma ray burst is on the other side of the universe, isn't that light technically the same age as we are because we are on opposite sides of the universe? Here is another thought..... If the universe is expanding, how come we can't see the edge of space?

Roberto Heras said...

The analogy for the universe's expansion which I prefer is the "dough and raisins" analogy (which has been around at least since Martin Gardner's 1962 book Relativity for the Million, if not earlier). In this analogy, we picture the universe as a gigantic blob of dough which is placed in an oven and begins to expand. Embedded throughout the dough are a bunch of raisins, each of which represents a galaxy (including one for our galaxy, the Milky Way). As the dough expands, the distances within it all stretch proportionally, and the raisins move away from each other IN ALL THREE DIRECTIONS.

Anonymous said...

I see it this way: we are moving on a path away from ground zero as is the exploding star. It's path is not necessarily in the opposite direction from us. Imagine both us and the star at GZ, then Big Bang or whatever event starts us moving away from GZ. Say our paths are only slightly separated from the same line. Assume we are both moving at the speed of light away from GZ. The distance between us and the star is growing, but we are not expanding away from each other at a rate of 2x like the example of the cars. It may only be 0.3X or even less. It's unlikely that the explosion happened 13B years ago. That would only make sense if both the star and the earth were stationary and exactly 13B LY apart. Then it would take 13B years for the light to reach us. So per my example, the light from the explosion is traveling at the speed of light (obviously) and it is traveling in all directions simultaneously. However, in order to reach us, it has to overcome the speed at which we are moving apart which is some fraction of the speed of light. So when this explosion occured, we were not as far apart as we are now, but the light had to overcome our speed away from the source before we could see it and that took 13B years to do so. But that doesn't necessarily mean it happened 13B years ago. That's just my opinion...

Anonymous said...

If both the earth and a star were moving in exactly opposite directions away from each other both at the speed of light, would the light from the star ever reach earth? We are separating at a rate of 2 times the speed of light, it seems light could never catch up and could only be visible from the point of origin.

Douglas Mallette said...

First, sorry for the late reply. I cannot reply to comments while at work. It's blocked. I will respond in order of posts, because I truly appreciate your comments and your interest.

Tonio - I know about inflation, but never considered it to be FTL. It still stands to reason then that FTL is possible if that's the case. Just gotta figure out how.

Anon - Universal startup is a fun thing to research I guess. I personally agree that I'd rather figure out how to get out of my own back yard and throughout our Milky Way than worry about places so distant and technically in the past. Not big on the global warming thing though. The Earth isn't fragile...we are. We're the ones bitching. Mother Earth has withstood asteroid bombardment, ice ages, heating spells and God knows what else. We humans are the ones whining about the weather, not Momma Earth.

Roberto - Now that was quite interesting. Subliminal speed control. lol.

Casey - I'm referring to relativistic speeds, not distance covered. What you're saying does make sense though. It's like walking on one of those flat treadmills at the airport. You're just walking at standard 3 mph like everyone else, but because of the moving walkway, you're going quite a bit faster than the slow pokes on the regular walkway beside you. I can see that.

Anon - I don't think we can see the edge of space because the light will never reach us. It's infinite, therefore completely faded out. Cosmic BG noise baby.

Roberto - I hate raisin bread. lol.

Anon - Okay, so the source of this explosion is moving away from us and we're moving away from it at some combined relative velocity. When the explosion happens the light has to make up the distance, still accounting for the fact that we are still flying away like a bat out of hell, albeit not faster than LS. By this reasoning, I think you're right. The explosion itself doesn't have to have occurred 13B yrs ago, it's just that the light took 13B years to play catchup. For all we know, the explosion could have happened 11.5B yrs ago and there was a 1.5B yr lag to make up for.

Anon - I think if the separation speed was FTL that light could never reach the other point. Can't do it. We'd never see it. This reasoning might also cover the "edge of space" issue you raised earlier.

Norman Copeland said...

Measure the wind for crying out loud.

Some have commands and jobs awaiting at different levels.