> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 10:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Big Bang [was RE: Stupid Astrophysics question]
>
>
> Chad Cooper wrote:
> >Let me remind everyone that these are representations or
> models based on
> >popular belief that the Universe has boundaries. I have not read any
> >literature that convinces me that there are boundaries,
> hence a shape to the
> >big U. I know this is very controversial, but I strongly
> disagree with the
> >Big Bang Theory.
>
> What do you mean by "boundaries" (like an edge or something?) What
> kind of evidence would you require for a Universe with boundaries?
When I think of boundaries, I think of the wave front of expansion as early
U expands,as described in Inflationary BB theory.
However I believe I misunderstood what the past thread was discussing. A
beautiful example of me spitting out bullshit for fun. I now do not think I
know what I am talking about when it comes to boundaries.
> When you state that you strongly disagree with the Big Bang theory,
> is this because you've not seen evidence of boundaries? Why do you
> feel that the Big Bang Theory requires a universe with boundaries?
> The Big Bang does not require a universe with boundaries. In fact
> most descriptions I've seen of the Big Bang universe never mention
> boundaries.
I disagree with the Big Bang theory because there is too much conflicting
evidence otherwise. I agree with you in that most newer BB theories use the
inflationary model, with a lot of singularity conditions to describe U.
>
> My understanding is that the Big Bang created space itself -- the
> posited primeval fireball did not expand into space, the fireball was
> space itself. In that sense it won't have a boundary (or edge) for a
> couple of reasons:
This is my pet peeve here, but it is not directed to you... I hate
references to BB that imply that BB Thoery is fact. It is still a theory.
The MEME for BB being fact has permeated into popular culture, including as
far as the Pope declaring that the Catholic Church endorse the BB as the
"Official" way the Universe began. Imagine that! As far as I know it is
still unproven, and newer models come out almost daily as some observable
fact appears to contradict the "pure math" of the latest BB theory.
>
> -- During inflation, space expanded faster than the speed of light.
> Depending on how long inflation lasted and how rapid it was, you
> could travel in straight line at the speed of light and never reach
> all of the points in space. Thus there is no boundary. [Of course
> then you could ask the question if those unreachable points are
> really part of our big U if you can't reach them.]
>
> -- Even without inflation, the universe could be "connected", kind of
> like a wormhole but on a cosmic scale. This means that you could
> travel in a straight line, and eventually arrive back at the point
> you started from. The simplest connected universe is a hypersphere,
> where no matter which direction you travel, you always end up back at
> your starting point. That's where the balloon analogy comes from:
> no matter which way you travel on the surface of the balloon you
> always come back to where you started from. The universe may also be
> connected in more complicated ways You can actually test for the
> connectedness by looking for signs in the cosmic background
> radiation.
> (see http://www.sciam.com/1999/0499issue/0499weeks.html and
> http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/2_21_98/bob1.htm)
I really liked these articles! Thanks. These models where U is a torus,or
hyperbolic or what ever, do not negate the idea that U is infinite, yet it
does not provide any evidence that BB is required for U to be infinite - yet
finite, as described in the articles. I also like the fact that it may be
observable with present technology. It will make for a landmark century if
Nanotechnology, AI, GUT, and a picture of the shape of the Universe are all
discovered in the next 25 years, which appear quite possible, if not likely.
(I know, there is a lot that could also not happen this century as well.)
> Given our current observation capabilities we've not seen signs, but
> they've not been ruled out either. But the balloon analogy still has
> it's flaws because the two dimensional surface of the balloon is
> expanding into the existing three-dimensional space. From the
> three-dimensional perspective, the surface of the balloon still has
> boundaries. This is where the baloon analogy falls apart, because in
> the real universe the kinds of "simple" hypersphere connectedness or
> the more complex forms do not require expansion into an existing
> hyperdimensional space, so there would still be no boundaries.
I agree. The balloon model is a fair representation of 3-D inflation and
expansion. It is clear to me anyway.
Nerd From Hell
"And then the court enters the great universe of chad to decide, on the
record that you have, whether or not two corners are enough or three corners
are enough..."
Bush campaign attorney Joe Klock Jr.,
>
>
> Jeff
>
> ---
> http://www.netjeff.com/
>
