Looking at the origin of the universe

[yhelothar]

So scientists say the universe is about 10-15billion years old. We can look back into time as light takes time to travel to us. So when we look about 10-15billion light years away, we can basically see the origin of the universe. Special scientific instruments have detected that everywhere they look in that distance is several thousand kelvin in temperature, giving more support for the big bang.
But the main point in the big bang is that the universe is expanding at a constant rate. Thus at the origin of the universe, everything would be tightly packed. The area that's 10-15billion light years away would only be a few dozens of light years away back near the origin of the universe. Thus if it was only a few dozens of light years away, it wouldn't take several billion years for the light to travel to us, but a few dozen.

So here's the question. If we're looking 10billion light years away, and 10 billion years ago, we were only 100 light years away, then how far back into time are we seeing?

 

[silverpig]

Think of it like this.

We are standing 10 m apart. At a given time, I we start walking away from each other at 1 m/s each (total 2 m/s). You then throw a ball in my direction at 2.5 m/s. It'll take longer than 10s to get to me.

How long it takes depends on how the universe has expanded. At first the universe expanded and slowed gradually, then it expanded at a constant rate, and now it is expanding at an ever greater rate. It's actually quite a complicated answer to your question though. In fact if we're looking 10 billion light years away, the "stuff" that emitted that light is not 10 billion light years away anymore. Also, while that light may have been emitted 10 billion years ago, the spot at which it originated is not 10 billion light years away.

 

[MrDudeMan]

where did you read about 'special instruments' that detected background radiation of several thousands of degrees? everything ive ever seen says it is 2-3K.

also, the universe, like silverpig said, is not in a constant state of expansion right now. the further away something is, the faster it is moving away. IIRC, it is a function of hubbles constant.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th
where did you read about 'special instruments' that detected background radiation of several thousands of degrees? everything ive ever seen says it is 2-3K.

also, the universe, like silverpig said, is not in a constant state of expansion right now. the further away something is, the faster it is moving away. IIRC, it is a function of hubbles constant.

Yeah it's 2.73 K or so, but back then it was many thousands of degrees... I assumed that's what he was saying.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th
where did you read about 'special instruments' that detected background radiation of several thousands of degrees? everything ive ever seen says it is 2-3K.

also, the universe, like silverpig said, is not in a constant state of expansion right now. the further away something is, the faster it is moving away. IIRC, it is a function of hubbles constant.

Yeah it's 2.73 K or so, but back then it was many thousands of degrees... I assumed that's what he was saying.

Yeah, back near the origin of the universe, all matter is much more compact, thus the temperature is higher.

 

[Buffta]

do you think we'll eventually be pulled into the sun by its gravity? will the moon and the earth ever collide?

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Buffta
do you think we'll eventually be pulled into the sun by its gravity? will the moon and the earth ever collide?

the moon is actually moving away from the earth at ~3.8cm per year. i dont know about your other question, but i would assume no as well.

 

[Smilin]

IMHO they have it completely backwards.

The universe is not expanding at all. It's collapsing towards a singularity a great distance away at an accelerating rate. Everyone just assumed redshift meant everything was moving away rather than everything was accelerating towards a point in the distance.

 

[JHutch]

IMHO they have it completely backwards.

The universe is not expanding at all. It's collapsing towards a singularity a great distance away at an accelerating rate. Everyone just assumed redshift meant everything was moving away rather than everything was accelerating towards a point in the distance.

Ok, here is the real story.

The universe is actually a great big ball. What we call the "big bang" was actually a huge guy (we'll call him Bill) took the ball and threw it towards another big guy (we'll guy him Bubba). As the ball left his hand, it slowed down as it went upwards in the arc of its travel. Then, it hit the top and seemed to be going at a steady pace. Now, we're on the downward arc and slowly gaining speed. In 10-15 billion more years Bubba ought to catch the ball and send it back toward Bill. But, oh man are we in trouble if Bubba drops the ball....

JHutch

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: JHutch

IMHO they have it completely backwards.

The universe is not expanding at all. It's collapsing towards a singularity a great distance away at an accelerating rate. Everyone just assumed redshift meant everything was moving away rather than everything was accelerating towards a point in the distance.

Ok, here is the real story.

The universe is actually a great big ball. What we call the "big bang" was actually a huge guy (we'll call him Bill) took the ball and threw it towards another big guy (we'll guy him Bubba). As the ball left his hand, it slowed down as it went upwards in the arc of its travel. Then, it hit the top and seemed to be going at a steady pace. Now, we're on the downward arc and slowly gaining speed. In 10-15 billion more years Bubba ought to catch the ball and send it back toward Bill. But, oh man are we in trouble if Bubba drops the ball....

JHutch

A------------------------------------------B--------C-------D


Assume the visible universe consists of B,C,D where you are at C.
Now assume A,B,C,D are massive objects with A being a supermassive singularity.

Let the clock roll forward.
What happens to the motion of B,C,D?
They all start falling into A. B goes fastest, then C, then D.

What does the motion of B and D look like from Cs relative perspective?
Everything is red shifted and thus looks like an expanding universe when it's not.

I spose it could be a Bill/Bubba thing or turtles all the way down too. I'm sticking with the collapsing universe theory myself.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: JHutch

IMHO they have it completely backwards.

The universe is not expanding at all. It's collapsing towards a singularity a great distance away at an accelerating rate. Everyone just assumed redshift meant everything was moving away rather than everything was accelerating towards a point in the distance.

Ok, here is the real story.

The universe is actually a great big ball. What we call the "big bang" was actually a huge guy (we'll call him Bill) took the ball and threw it towards another big guy (we'll guy him Bubba). As the ball left his hand, it slowed down as it went upwards in the arc of its travel. Then, it hit the top and seemed to be going at a steady pace. Now, we're on the downward arc and slowly gaining speed. In 10-15 billion more years Bubba ought to catch the ball and send it back toward Bill. But, oh man are we in trouble if Bubba drops the ball....

JHutch

A------------------------------------------B--------C-------D


Assume the visible universe consists of B,C,D where you are at C.
Now assume A,B,C,D are massive objects with A being a supermassive singularity.

Let the clock roll forward.
What happens to the motion of B,C,D?
They all start falling into A. B goes fastest, then C, then D.

What does the motion of B and D look like from Cs relative perspective?
Everything is red shifted and thus looks like an expanding universe when it's not.

I spose it could be a Bill/Bubba thing or turtles all the way down too. I'm sticking with the collapsing universe theory myself.

Hey that's a good theory.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Buffta
do you think we'll eventually be pulled into the sun by its gravity? will the moon and the earth ever collide?

In a few billion or so years, the sun will get hotter and bigger and pretty much fry and even consume Earth. Like a bug on a zapper, except completely different.

Text

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: JHutch

IMHO they have it completely backwards.

The universe is not expanding at all. It's collapsing towards a singularity a great distance away at an accelerating rate. Everyone just assumed redshift meant everything was moving away rather than everything was accelerating towards a point in the distance.

Ok, here is the real story.

The universe is actually a great big ball. What we call the "big bang" was actually a huge guy (we'll call him Bill) took the ball and threw it towards another big guy (we'll guy him Bubba). As the ball left his hand, it slowed down as it went upwards in the arc of its travel. Then, it hit the top and seemed to be going at a steady pace. Now, we're on the downward arc and slowly gaining speed. In 10-15 billion more years Bubba ought to catch the ball and send it back toward Bill. But, oh man are we in trouble if Bubba drops the ball....

JHutch

A------------------------------------------B--------C-------D


Assume the visible universe consists of B,C,D where you are at C.
Now assume A,B,C,D are massive objects with A being a supermassive singularity.

Let the clock roll forward.
What happens to the motion of B,C,D?
They all start falling into A. B goes fastest, then C, then D.

What does the motion of B and D look like from Cs relative perspective?
Everything is red shifted and thus looks like an expanding universe when it's not.

I spose it could be a Bill/Bubba thing or turtles all the way down too. I'm sticking with the collapsing universe theory myself.

Except the CMB is redshifted in EVERY direction...

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: JHutch

IMHO they have it completely backwards.

The universe is not expanding at all. It's collapsing towards a singularity a great distance away at an accelerating rate. Everyone just assumed redshift meant everything was moving away rather than everything was accelerating towards a point in the distance.

Ok, here is the real story.

The universe is actually a great big ball. What we call the "big bang" was actually a huge guy (we'll call him Bill) took the ball and threw it towards another big guy (we'll guy him Bubba). As the ball left his hand, it slowed down as it went upwards in the arc of its travel. Then, it hit the top and seemed to be going at a steady pace. Now, we're on the downward arc and slowly gaining speed. In 10-15 billion more years Bubba ought to catch the ball and send it back toward Bill. But, oh man are we in trouble if Bubba drops the ball....

JHutch

A------------------------------------------B--------C-------D


Assume the visible universe consists of B,C,D where you are at C.
Now assume A,B,C,D are massive objects with A being a supermassive singularity.

Let the clock roll forward.
What happens to the motion of B,C,D?
They all start falling into A. B goes fastest, then C, then D.

What does the motion of B and D look like from Cs relative perspective?
Everything is red shifted and thus looks like an expanding universe when it's not.

I spose it could be a Bill/Bubba thing or turtles all the way down too. I'm sticking with the collapsing universe theory myself.

Except the CMB is redshifted in EVERY direction...

...mmmm, yeah.... In the above illustration B,C,D will ALL be redshifted to each other.

The theory still works quite well in three dimensions instead of just one. It's just a bitch to illustrate in two or more dimensions due to font spacing


There is a slice of space in 3D where objects will be perpendicular to the observer and these will blue shift since they get closer as both fall into the singularity. How large this slice of space is is determined by how far away the singularity is. If it is a nearly infinite distance away the slice of space that will be blue shift will be almost infinitely thin...thus nothing will blue shift.

I'm tellin ya man. We have it backwards. We're going to take our current incorrect theory and tweak it to fit observations until we have a mess resembling the earth centered solar system model.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Smilin

...mmmm, yeah.... In the above illustration B,C,D will ALL be redshifted to each other.

The theory still works quite well in three dimensions instead of just one. It's just a bitch to illustrate in two or more dimensions due to font spacing


There is a slice of space in 3D where objects will be perpendicular to the observer and these will blue shift since they get closer as both fall into the singularity. How large this slice of space is is determined by how far away the singularity is. If it is a nearly infinite distance away the slice of space that will be blue shift will be almost infinitely thin...thus nothing will blue shift.

I'm tellin ya man. We have it backwards. We're going to take our current incorrect theory and tweak it to fit observations until we have a mess resembling the earth centered solar system model.

How do you explain the uniformity of the CMB then? Every point in the universe had to have been in causal contact at one point. And then why is the last scattering surface roughly spherical?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Smilin

...mmmm, yeah.... In the above illustration B,C,D will ALL be redshifted to each other.

The theory still works quite well in three dimensions instead of just one. It's just a bitch to illustrate in two or more dimensions due to font spacing


There is a slice of space in 3D where objects will be perpendicular to the observer and these will blue shift since they get closer as both fall into the singularity. How large this slice of space is is determined by how far away the singularity is. If it is a nearly infinite distance away the slice of space that will be blue shift will be almost infinitely thin...thus nothing will blue shift.

I'm tellin ya man. We have it backwards. We're going to take our current incorrect theory and tweak it to fit observations until we have a mess resembling the earth centered solar system model.

How do you explain the uniformity of the CMB then? Every point in the universe had to have been in causal contact at one point. And then why is the last scattering surface roughly spherical?

CMB isn't uniform. It has "wrinkles". There is also nothing that says every point in the universe had to have been in contact at one point. What makes you think that?

the origins of CMB also raise some questions. If it's traveling at the speed of light from OUR point of origin, how did we get ahead of it to begin with? If it was generated after the big bang, why isn't it lumped in one direction in the sky?

 

[msparish]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: JHutch

IMHO they have it completely backwards.

The universe is not expanding at all. It's collapsing towards a singularity a great distance away at an accelerating rate. Everyone just assumed redshift meant everything was moving away rather than everything was accelerating towards a point in the distance.

Ok, here is the real story.

The universe is actually a great big ball. What we call the "big bang" was actually a huge guy (we'll call him Bill) took the ball and threw it towards another big guy (we'll guy him Bubba). As the ball left his hand, it slowed down as it went upwards in the arc of its travel. Then, it hit the top and seemed to be going at a steady pace. Now, we're on the downward arc and slowly gaining speed. In 10-15 billion more years Bubba ought to catch the ball and send it back toward Bill. But, oh man are we in trouble if Bubba drops the ball....

JHutch

A------------------------------------------B--------C-------D


Assume the visible universe consists of B,C,D where you are at C.
Now assume A,B,C,D are massive objects with A being a supermassive singularity.

Let the clock roll forward.
What happens to the motion of B,C,D?
They all start falling into A. B goes fastest, then C, then D.

What does the motion of B and D look like from Cs relative perspective?
Everything is red shifted and thus looks like an expanding universe when it's not.

I spose it could be a Bill/Bubba thing or turtles all the way down too. I'm sticking with the collapsing universe theory myself.

Except the CMB is redshifted in EVERY direction...

...mmmm, yeah.... In the above illustration B,C,D will ALL be redshifted to each other.

The theory still works quite well in three dimensions instead of just one. It's just a bitch to illustrate in two or more dimensions due to font spacing


There is a slice of space in 3D where objects will be perpendicular to the observer and these will blue shift since they get closer as both fall into the singularity. How large this slice of space is is determined by how far away the singularity is. If it is a nearly infinite distance away the slice of space that will be blue shift will be almost infinitely thin...thus nothing will blue shift.

I'm tellin ya man. We have it backwards. We're going to take our current incorrect theory and tweak it to fit observations until we have a mess resembling the earth centered solar system model.

Even if the sigularity was at a nearly infinite distance, there would still be a visible plane. There would be no shift at all. So, I ask you, where is this plane?

 

[Buffta]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: JHutch

IMHO they have it completely backwards.

The universe is not expanding at all. It's collapsing towards a singularity a great distance away at an accelerating rate. Everyone just assumed redshift meant everything was moving away rather than everything was accelerating towards a point in the distance.

Ok, here is the real story.

The universe is actually a great big ball. What we call the "big bang" was actually a huge guy (we'll call him Bill) took the ball and threw it towards another big guy (we'll guy him Bubba). As the ball left his hand, it slowed down as it went upwards in the arc of its travel. Then, it hit the top and seemed to be going at a steady pace. Now, we're on the downward arc and slowly gaining speed. In 10-15 billion more years Bubba ought to catch the ball and send it back toward Bill. But, oh man are we in trouble if Bubba drops the ball....

JHutch

A------------------------------------------B--------C-------D


Assume the visible universe consists of B,C,D where you are at C.
Now assume A,B,C,D are massive objects with A being a supermassive singularity.

Let the clock roll forward.
What happens to the motion of B,C,D?
They all start falling into A. B goes fastest, then C, then D.

What does the motion of B and D look like from Cs relative perspective?
Everything is red shifted and thus looks like an expanding universe when it's not.

I spose it could be a Bill/Bubba thing or turtles all the way down too. I'm sticking with the collapsing universe theory myself.

our universe could be a marble and bill and bubba are playing marbles (like men in black) i like that idea

 

[Agent11]

Originally posted by: msparish

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: JHutch

IMHO they have it completely backwards.

The universe is not expanding at all. It's collapsing towards a singularity a great distance away at an accelerating rate. Everyone just assumed redshift meant everything was moving away rather than everything was accelerating towards a point in the distance.

Ok, here is the real story.

The universe is actually a great big ball. What we call the "big bang" was actually a huge guy (we'll call him Bill) took the ball and threw it towards another big guy (we'll guy him Bubba). As the ball left his hand, it slowed down as it went upwards in the arc of its travel. Then, it hit the top and seemed to be going at a steady pace. Now, we're on the downward arc and slowly gaining speed. In 10-15 billion more years Bubba ought to catch the ball and send it back toward Bill. But, oh man are we in trouble if Bubba drops the ball....

JHutch

A------------------------------------------B--------C-------D


Assume the visible universe consists of B,C,D where you are at C.
Now assume A,B,C,D are massive objects with A being a supermassive singularity.

Let the clock roll forward.
What happens to the motion of B,C,D?
They all start falling into A. B goes fastest, then C, then D.

What does the motion of B and D look like from Cs relative perspective?
Everything is red shifted and thus looks like an expanding universe when it's not.

I spose it could be a Bill/Bubba thing or turtles all the way down too. I'm sticking with the collapsing universe theory myself.

Except the CMB is redshifted in EVERY direction...

...mmmm, yeah.... In the above illustration B,C,D will ALL be redshifted to each other.

The theory still works quite well in three dimensions instead of just one. It's just a bitch to illustrate in two or more dimensions due to font spacing


There is a slice of space in 3D where objects will be perpendicular to the observer and these will blue shift since they get closer as both fall into the singularity. How large this slice of space is is determined by how far away the singularity is. If it is a nearly infinite distance away the slice of space that will be blue shift will be almost infinitely thin...thus nothing will blue shift.

I'm tellin ya man. We have it backwards. We're going to take our current incorrect theory and tweak it to fit observations until we have a mess resembling the earth centered solar system model.

Even if the sigularity was at a nearly infinite distance, there would still be a visible plane. There would be no shift at all. So, I ask you, where is this plane?

Nice try smilin, but I think your theory doesn't work.

 

[Smilin]

someone "moved" the discussion over to:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=50&threadid=1785816&enterthread=y

I've resumed explanations there.