Notices
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Does this make any sense?

  1. #1 Does this make any sense? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1
    Hi all,

    This is my first post on a scientific forum. I am not a physicist, I just think too much
    I just sent this mail to "ask Nasa":

    Subject: Big Bang theory = finite universe? (and a new theory)


    Dear Nasa,

    Considering the Big Bang theory to be correct, would you agree that we live in a finite universe?

    (Cfr.: National Geographic - Investigating Earth - Big Bang Theory)

    From my (little) understanding of the big bang theory, an event (like an explosion) happened out of nothing which created everything.
    Out of this central 'point', everything started expanding super fast (probably like an inflating balloon or something like that). This is the 'expanding universe' (Hubble Law etc.).

    But, logic tells me that according to this theory at 2 Planck time the universe was 'bigger' then at 1 Planck time (since it is expanding).
    (Cfr. the dictionary: Expand= "To increase the size, volume, quantity, or scope of; enlarge")

    So, if something 'grows' or expands, even at a rate of the speed of light to the power of the speed of light, it size is determinable, and thus finite, no?


    This would also imply that there is some 'creating force' that started all this. I have a better theory:

    I personally think that the universe ís expanding (and contracting):
    Instead of thinking everything exists 'within' the expanding balloon, it exists on the outer edge (on 'the plastic that holds the air'). This outer edge is off-course not a 'thin line'.
    If we look into the sky to other galaxies, we look along the edge of the balloon (which is in a straight line from our point of view, but curved for the outer perspective), and possibly not even always in a straight line (but in a parabolic/wave/curved like manner on the edge).
    Technically, we could also look 'through the air' in the balloon, but this isn't possible using current technology.
    a. along the edge in a straight line
    b. along the edge in a curved line (see below)
    c. through the inside
    We can't look to the outside of the balloon.


    I also think that black holes are links/gateways that run through the 'air in the balloon' from one point of the outer edge to another point (point = galaxy).
    Matter & energy is transported through it, but not instantly, causing some areas of the edge to contain more ('heavier') objects then other areas. These are bumps in the (not so perfect-spherical) balloon, which cause the curved line when looking along the edge.

    This could maybe explain some things:
    - 'curved space-time'
    - major red shift difference in 'nearby' galaxies
    - quasars coming out of black holes


    Ps: A balloon can inflate and deflate, but it always remains a balloon.

    Pps: Even the alleged dark mass/energy fits in this theory (it's on the inside of the balloon).
    I have no idea what could be inside the balloon.

    Ppps: This theory makes out universe finite (from an outside point of view) and infinite (from our point of view).
    If we could look faster than the speed of light, we would see ourselves (going along the edge)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Does this make any sense? 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by ges.
    From my (little) understanding of the big bang theory, an event (like an explosion) happened out of nothing which created everything.
    You should not think of it as an explosion, although popular presentations like to suggest something like this happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by ges.
    Out of this central 'point', everything started expanding super fast (probably like an inflating balloon or something like that). This is the 'expanding universe' (Hubble Law etc.).
    The idea of a "central point" is wrong, because it implies that this event happened already inside a vacuum. This is wrong. The entire universe was the so called "Big Bang" (bad term).
    Quote Originally Posted by ges.
    But, logic tells me that according to this theory at 2 Planck time the universe was 'bigger' then at 1 Planck time (since it is expanding).
    (Cfr. the dictionary: Expand= "To increase the size, volume, quantity, or scope of; enlarge")

    So, if something 'grows' or expands, even at a rate of the speed of light to the power of the speed of light, it size is determinable, and thus finite, no?
    This is a problem of finding the correct term for a phenomenon that is difficult to understand and even more difficult to describe. "Expansion" of the universe only means that the distances between two fixed points in space increase in time. It does not say anything about the size of the entire universe. This does not necessarily imply a finite character, either.
    Quote Originally Posted by ges.
    Instead of thinking everything exists 'within' the expanding balloon, it exists on the outer edge (on 'the plastic that holds the air'). This outer edge is off-course not a 'thin line'.
    Excellent analogy. Maybe you want to have look here:
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html
    or google "universe expansion balloon" and look for images.

    In fact, this balloon analogy is often used to explain certain aspects of the space curvature.

    Since you are bringing it up: Another aspect is that even though the since of a balloon is finite, it is still unbounded. You can travel along the surface of the balloon, but you will never come to the "edge" of the balloon. Furthermore, the surface also does not have a centre.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    ges. The big bang got it's name from Fred Hoyle who used it as a term of contempt because he did not believe in it. But it stuck. It is an inflation then expansion, like blowing up a balloon.

    If expansion happened in 3 dimensions, yes there would be a centre but what is asked of the big bang is that it is an expanding hypersphere, so four physical dimensions. To a 4D being, our 3D universe would look flat, like a piece of paper, as a 2D universe would look like to us. So though you could say our universe is tens, even hundreds of billions of light years across, to a 4D being, it would seem to have no thickness (in it's 4D world), so just a skin on a 4D hypersphere.

    Of course the universe is finite. Everything is. Infinity is a mathematical term, like the square root of -1.

    Of course you cannot look out, or in from the hypersphere because that is to us an unknown direction we have no evidence exists.

    To form a wormhole, a black hole would have to create a tunnel through the fourth physical dimension (I hate the idiot who called time the fourth dimension) which is extremely unlikely. If such a thing were possible, matter and energy would start leaking away and the black hole would soon vanish.

    Spacetime does not curve any more than it heats up. It is the effect of gravity travelling through space.

    Redshift for most part I believe is down to gravity as I have explained elsewhere.

    Super massive black holes with lots of stuff falling into them are known as quasars from the huge amounts of scattered energy (black holes are messy eaters).

    If the universe was a hypersphere and you had some kind of super-tachyon telescope, we could in theory see ourselves, by seeing right around the sphere, since light would be encased in our 3D universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    87
    It may help you to get a clearer picture if you consider that there is a difference between being unbounded and infinite. An object can be unbounded without being infinite; a sphere (regardless of how many dimensions you picture it in) is such an example. It is an unbounded object; if you were a 2D ant on the surface of the 3D sphere, you could literally walk all over it without encountering any place where the sphere ends (the same goes if you are a 3D ant on a 4D sphere). However, the object itself is finite -- one can compute its surface or volume and it is not infinite.

    You are correct in your assumption that the Universe is finite, of course, as Cyberia excellently explained.
    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
  •