An Idea

[Profpat]

This is from NASA WMAP:

Please keep in mind the following important points to avoid misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

• The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
• By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
• It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

[Fredrick]

This is from NASA WMAP:


Please keep in mind the following important points to avoid misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

• The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
• By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
• It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

Thank you, Pat, this is a delivery I can live with (appears similar or includes satisfactorily that what I have been stating).

From the choice given, I guess I am stating our universe was born with infinite space; space as an 'open' entity. Though I like very much that in both cases there is no 'center' to the big bang, it reads as if that space would now be an 'open wound' which is of course also not the case (it may be nothing more than a semantics issue). Didn't Hubble show there is such a phenomenon as all matter moving away from all, or should we read that more as 'generally true, but not in specifics.'

I like that the 'edge' is not considered an issue of importance.

I only disagree with the last position, because a Big Bang Model should not shy away from the how and the why (even when that requires word use like 'potential').

Thank you; much appreciated. Do you know if this info was updated recently?

[Fredrick]

Hi Fredrick;

That 1 dimensional Planck Length Slit is our universe. That is why we are all at the center of the universe. That is why the big bang point isn't localized but rather everywhere, where you are at is the big bang point, our whole entire universe is that point expanded. And so we have have a series of expansions, the string expanding from the point, the quark expanding from the string , the proton expanding from the quarks, the atom expanding from the proton, the molecule expanding from the atom, the cell expanding from the molecule, the body expanding from the cell. Sequential processing Fredrick not all at once, but in a sequence of hierarchical steps. But believe what you will, but no more debate from you as to why you don't like sequencing, that has become redundant and boring.

Best,

Pat

I like how you view this, Pat. I would not use the same words (could not phrase it the same way). It is definitively not a correct view and not a defendable view, but I like the delivery, as if we are all still connected to (just one step away from) the Big Bang. Too bad it cannot be correct as such. For one, there has to be some sincere recycling involved to get to the present.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick:

I too basically agree with NASA on this. So maybe we have a good starting point here.

Best,

Pat

P.s. I believe the date of it is March 19, 2009 and can be accessed at: (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html)

[austintorn@aol.com]

It was Hoyle, I guess, who didn't care for the big bang idea, giving it what he thought was a silly name, 'Big Bang', trying to disparage it, but the name stuck and so the advertising of it even increased instead.

[Profpat]

From Oracle's Think Quest Education Foundation:

Introduction

The universe is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition (Electronic Version 3.6p) as "all matter and energy, including Earth, the galaxies and all therein, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole." It is known that the universe is expanding rapidly, and that all other galaxies are "rushing" away from us. The universe is made up of many different structures arranged in a fairly well-defined hierarchy.

[Profpat]

The hierarchy of subatomic particles

[austintorn@aol.com]

Good solutions, all. That's done.

So, has determinism (or not) been solved?

[Felix Schrodinger]

Illustrating the sine wave's fundamental relationship to the circle.
AND TIME

Yes we need time.

Hi All

I love this illustration (worth at least a trillion words!). Can anyone explain how the rotation in the diagram relates to electro-magnetism?

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

I'm sure we'll morph ourselves into the Borg. It's so logical.

That's all right for you Pat, accountants may already be Borg? But what about us cats?

Felix