General relativity can not provide a true picture of the origin of the universe, and it is wrong to take the big bang literally
A process called inflation is required to explain the bang in the big bang. General relativity only relates to the very tiny, hot and dense universe which sprang into existence shortly after the big bang.
This hot and dense universe was not point-like. The young universe existed everywhere because the young universe was all that existed!
That hot, dense universe was filled with radiation. As the universe expanded, it cooled until the radiation became just the faint remnant we now observe.
The important point in answer to your question is that the radiation was everywhere within that early hot, dense universe and its remnant (the CMBR) is still to be found everywhere within our current universe.
Hmm, maybe it makes sense. Most Big Bang theories involve us looking from the outside at a point exploding into light and particles. Whatever the details. Bit like looking at a supernova remnant.
But really we were/are nearer the source watching all the debris flying away in all directions?
That ties in with what we see.
Indra1's theory about the CMB being Hawking Radiation goes a bit wrong on temperatures, IMO. CMB at about 2.7K IIRC, is much hotter than Hawking Radiation, surely? Hawking Radiation is seriously cold for big Black Holes. Tiny fraction of a Kelvin,
ALL SET UP NOW for Einstein's field equations and the Ricci Tensor!
Einstein Field Equations - for beginners! - YouTube
Look, £35 D'Appolito style Logitech Z200 speakers. Very nice.
But really we were/are nearer the source watching all the debris flying away in all directions?
That ties in with what we see.
Indra1's theory about the CMB being Hawking Radiation goes a bit wrong on temperatures, IMO. CMB at about 2.7K IIRC, is much hotter than Hawking Radiation, surely? Hawking Radiation is seriously cold for big Black Holes. Tiny fraction of a Kelvin,
ALL SET UP NOW for Einstein's field equations and the Ricci Tensor!
Einstein Field Equations - for beginners! - YouTube
Look, £35 D'Appolito style Logitech Z200 speakers. Very nice.
Attachments
Steve, I don't think we can suppose there is a continuum between our spacetime to the Outerverse's. We should not be able to see the debris that explode to other part of the Outerverse, only the part that implode into a point and "fell through the singularity" forming our spacetime. Just a wild "what-if" thought experiment, nothing scientific.
Tone it down, Steve!Look, £35 D'Appolito style Logitech Z200 speakers. Very nice.
Attachments
I think you've been spending too much time on the Omniversal Battlefield!
Outerverse | Omniversal Battlefield Wiki | Fandom
As the universe expands, all points in spacetime move away from each other.
No one point can be considered to be at the centre of the expansion.
Similarly, the universe did not have a source in the sense of a centre of origin.
The universe just appeared everywhere at the same time, albeit that the 'everywhere' was very small to begin with.
Can you give us a more relevant link to the concept of the Outerverse?Sorry, never even heard of Omniverse Battlefield before.
I have none. The thought just occurred to me right after
What if we really are in a black hole? Our universe/black hole would have been formed somewhere in the multidimensional multiverse. The word Outerverse kind of pop in my mind just like that to identify the universe where a singularity came to pass forming our universe/black hole. We have no idea why our universe is expanding. It is possible that matter is being absorbed through the event horizon in the Outerverse to appear in our universe evenly distributed as dark matter. Event horizon of our universe then expand as a consequence of the increase in mass. As I said, a "what-if" thought experiment, no data and nothing scientific.
So, you are introducing speculation into a thread entitled "What is the Universe expanding into.."?
I don't know if that's allowable!
I wonder if there is some calculation we can do to corroborate this idea?
Viktor T. Toth - Hawking radiation calculator
I put 2.7K (temperature) into this Black Hole calculator and got about half the mass of the moon. Which doesn't help a lot. I put 13.7 Bn years into it and got 7K temperature for a Black Hole with that lifetime. Wiki's mass of 8.8E52 kg gives the correct 13.7 Bn LY size. Bit stumped for anything else to try.
Like for example the notion that extreme red shift isn't evidence that entire galaxies are moving faster than c. Just because it's in conjunction with expansion doesn't mean that "relatively", they aren't in fact moving faster. The red shift proves it. We just don't like our red tail feathers ruffled.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.