Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: From where Vacuum came in which universe expand ????

  1. #1 From where Vacuum came in which universe expand ???? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2
    Hi to all
    Sorry I am not expert but one thing about Big Bang make me worried is from where the vacuum space come( or more precisely the space in which our universe in expanding)

    We say when there is nothing it is vacuum but if I am not wrong it means that there is space which is without any matter or time.

    It is the most stupid question but no1 has ever given me answer. Why there is nothing. Please dont give me answer that where there is nothing it is vacuum. Isnt it that we are just pre-assuming that there is nothing and one thing more why the fluctuation happens only at one place not others.

    Also from where it came and why it is so large and if it has boundaries than why it has boundaries. If there is nothing than there should be a valid reason why there is nothing.

    This question make me really confused many times.
    Please put some light on it

    __________________________________________________ __________________

    No question is stupid. it is only our limited knowledge which make them look stupid.


    6_6
    ) (
    vish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    Don't feel alone, the most brilliant cosmoligists of our time are pondering the same things. Answer for now is nobody KNOWS , only theories are out there.
    Just keep reading and thinking.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Welcome Vishtar! The universe is everything. It is not expanding into a “vacuum space” because it is everything, literally. This is a difficult thing for many people to understand. If it expands or contracts, then there is really never any more or any less of it, because it is everything that ever was or ever will be all of the time.

    If by “fluctuation happens only at one place” you mean the original singularity, then there is a split in theory. If the universe is infinite, then the original fluctuation happened everywhere across an infinite space, not just at one point. So there would be the universe that we can observe and an infinite universe beyond. If not, then the observable universe happened at one point. As the universe continues to expand, we will see more and more of it as the light from distant objects reaches us. It is therefore in this case, incredibly large, but not infinite.

    Space and time came from the same event, so there is no time before some start point where the universe came from. There is only the universe and it started 13.7 billion years ago. It is large, because it has been expanding for such a long time and for the last few billion years at an ever increasing rate. If the universe had a certain density (mass per volume) that caused it to close at some point in the future and collapse back into a singularity, then it would have a boundary. From observations taken over many years, it seems to have less than this density, and will instead expand, perhaps forever, so no boundaries.

    You’ll have to clarify what you meant by, “If there is nothing than there should be a valid reason why there is nothing. “ There isn’t a time before the universe, so there isn’t a point where there is “nothing”.

    This is the explanation that best matches our observations. Ideas about parallel universes in hyperspace or colliding branes causing the Big Bang have no proof…yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    If by “fluctuation happens only at one place” you mean the original singularity, then there is a split in theory. If the universe is infinite, then the original fluctuation happened everywhere across an infinite space, not just at one point. So there would be the universe that we can observe and an infinite universe beyond. If not, then the observable universe happened at one point. As the universe continues to expand, we will see more and more of it as the light from distant objects reaches us. It is therefore in this case, incredibly large, but not infinite.

    Space and time came from the same event, so there is no time before some start point where the universe came from. There is only the universe and it started 13.7 billion years ago.

    This is the explanation that best matches our observations. Ideas about parallel universes in hyperspace or colliding branes causing the Big Bang have no proof…yet.
    I do not understand the sentence where you say "if the universe is infinite, then the original fluctuation happened everywhere across an infinite space, not just at one point".
    Surely this suggests that space, and time, existed before the singularity or fluctuation.
    You also state that the universe may have happened "at one point". As I understand events, this did not happen at a "point" in space because space was created with the singularity,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2
    By nothing I means that the space or the universe where time (or more specifically matter has not reached). From where this space arises and what composes this space. It cant be possible that this space arises from its own. There should be some reason. This is just like god created universe but than who created god. Same way there was a vacuum space where universe was born but from where this vacuum come or from where it is born. Mathematics say where there is nothing it is vacuum but this is an assumption. and how big is this space ( vacuum) and what happens when it ends..

    One thing which also make me worried is that our universe started with random fluctuation in the space(universe). Can it be possible that at two or more places in universe these fluctuations happened and as our universe is expanding so does the other and at some point we can run into that universe.
    6_6
    ) (
    vish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman cyclops12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    india
    Posts
    6
    i m also not expert but i think that at initial stage universe was filled with matter and anti-matter...
    but soon they annihilate each other...creating vacuum,space to expand universe and also providing energy to support large entropy
    CYClops
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Halliday, the typical result of an expanding universe is that if you run the expansion backwards, then space time collapses to a single point smaller than a proton. Our models of the universe do not exclude an infinite universe however, so this possibility cannot be ruled out.The universe did not expand from a single point at an infinite rate, nor for an infinite amount of time, so how might it now be infinite? The only possible answer is that it was infinite right from the beginning. The part of this infinite universe that became the observable universe was surrounded by an infinitie number of points that also inflated. I doubt this very much, but the models don't discount this possibility, so I mentioned it.

    Vishtar, again the universe is not expanding into an empty space, nor did it come into being from an empty space. The universe really is everything. The fabric of space time is elastic and can be bent, twisted or dragged by gravity (particularly around a black hole) and is stretched by dark energy. So the original tiny speck of space time that existed when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old has been constantly reshaped. The reason for the reshaping we understand as General Relativity (gravity) and Quantum Mechanics (dark energy or negative pressure). These have been active for 13.7 billion years inflating and remolding space time into the universe we see today.
    We have no way to interact with something outside of the universe or before the universe began. For instance, if I have a theory that there are organisms living under the ice on Enceladus, then sooner or later someone can send a probe there and prove this one way or the other. However, if I say that these organisms existed before the universe began or that they exist in another universe, then this is not a scientific theory because it can never be proved. So we can worry about these questions, but they still cannot be dealt with scientifically.

    Cyclops12, matter and antimatter did react in the early universe, but it did not create an empty vacuum for the universe to expand into, if that is what you meant. The separation of the Super Force released the energy that fueled the expansion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Halliday, the typical result of an expanding universe is that if you run the expansion backwards, then space time collapses to a single point smaller than a proton.
    Almost certainly a question that cannot be answered, at present, and maybe of no importance anyway, but what does current theory say about the actual "size" of the single point or singularity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 or not... 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Something called the Planck length:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: From where Vacuum came in which universe expand ???? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by vishstar
    Hi to all
    Sorry I am not expert but one thing about Big Bang make me worried is from where the vacuum space come( or more precisely the space in which our universe in expanding)

    A moment's thought shows that something cannot expand from almost no size to a hundred billion light years across and remain the same, which is required for the conventional idea of space. It is crazy.

    So space is literally nothing. If there was no universe then space would not even occupy the area of a single electron. But what is in it defines space: matter, energy, gravity, etc. That gives it area.

    You will be told that gravity bends space. They will not tell you infra-red radiation heats space because that is crazy, but so is the idea that gravity bends space. They can't just see it. Gravity travels through space, so effecting things further away. Space is not like an old carpet being pulled so it pulls the table on it. Gravity works more like magnetism attracting a piece of iron. No need for a medium.

    If space is nothing, then the universe is expanding into literally nothing, so no resistance of any kind. In reality, matter would be expanding below light speed into an area which has already been occupied by faster gravity and energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Almost certainly a question that cannot be answered, at present, and maybe of no importance anyway, but what does current theory say about the actual "size" of the single point or singularity?
    The singularity is an idea that even Hawking has dismissed. It's original size was a point source with no dimensions but now some are moving the goal posts and saying it could be fairly large. The singularity was invented because black holes do not inflate or expand so somehow, this black hole under another name could do the impossible and break the laws of gravity, so a big bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by cyclops12
    i m also not expert but i think that at initial stage universe was filled with matter and anti-matter...
    but soon they annihilate each other...creating vacuum,space to expand universe and also providing energy to support large entropy

    Mythology originally said that was a billion universes full of anti-matter and a billion and one universes full of matter and from the mutual annihilation there was just one universe full of matter left. Of course this matter having been subjected to forces which would make the big bang look like a damp squib and so it would be spread over an area of gazillions of cubic light years and would even have trouble forming even basic hydrogen atoms as all particles rushed away from each other at virtually light speed beyond any hope of mutual attraction. So the idea is mainly forgotten now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •