Is the Big Bang Still Happening?

Most people would consider the big bang is an "event" in the past.
However, this is just one way to look at time: The deeper we look into
space, the further back in time we see. If we assume space is flat,
then the most distant galaxies we observe are unique, and thus the
furthest observable point, the surface of last scattering, is also
unique and not directly related to the "history" of our universe.

What this means is that the pictures of the CMB coming out of projects
like WMAP are not "baby pictures" of our universe, but observations of
the distant universe as it is at the time of recombination at *that*
spatial location. If you could see beyond the scattering surface, you
would see all the way back to the Big Bang. However, again this is a
unique region and not *our* Big Bang.

There are two ways to look at the universe: One in which the Big Bang
represents a horizon receding from every point in space at the speed
of light. In doing so, it encompasses an increasingly large region.
The other way to look at the universe is to examine the contents of
this horizon and describe the evolution of the contents as if that
horizon was always there. What is most important here is the fact that
the observer's point of view determines the nature of the universe the
observer sees.

This may sound bizarre, but you *have* to realize that the observer is
*part* of the universe, and neither could exist without the other. The
prevailing view, that the Big Bang ultimately results in us (the
observer) to be here is only one perspective. There is no reason not
to look at it the other way; our observation of the universe results
in the Big Bang, which must represent the furthest point we can
observe (since the universe must have a finite age).

I would like to posit that the prejudice towards the prevailing view
is based more on its compatibility with Judeo-Christian mythology and
not by its apparent contradiction with the implications of Quantum
Mechanics.

Does anyone else have a problem with the Big Bang as "process" as
opposed to "event"?

Alastair wrote:

You are the "Nodem" from the discussion page on "universe" at Wikipedia,
aren't you? If yes, then I notice that you do not bother to address any
mof my arguments there. Instead of discussing physics, you ramble on
about essentially metaphysical questions.


Most people would consider the big bang is an "event" in the past.

Depends on how exactly one defines the term "big bang". AFAIK,
commonly it is defined in astronomy as "the initial singularity".


However, this is just one way to look at time: The deeper we look into
space, the further back in time we see. If we assume space is flat,
then the most distant galaxies we observe are unique, and thus the
furthest observable point, the surface of last scattering, is also
unique

Agreed so far.


and not directly related to the "history" of our universe.

What this means is that the pictures of the CMB coming out of projects
like WMAP are not "baby pictures" of our universe, but observations of
the distant universe as it is at the time of recombination at *that*
spatial location.

Obviously, yes. So what? Have you ever heard of the "cosmological
principle"?


If you could see beyond the scattering surface, you
would see all the way back to the Big Bang. However, again this is a
unique region

Agreed, but see above.


and not *our* Big Bang.

This makes no sense. The *same* Big Bang was happening everywhere at
once (according to the standard BBT!).


There are two ways to look at the universe: One in which the Big Bang
represents a horizon receding from every point in space at the speed
of light.

That would be a very strange way to look at it, IMO.


In doing so, it encompasses an increasingly large region.
The other way to look at the universe is to examine the contents of
this horizon and describe the evolution of the contents as if that
horizon was always there.

As far as I can see, *both* of these two ways have little to do with
what the standard BBT actually does do.


What is most important here is the fact that
the observer's point of view determines the nature of the universe the
observer sees.

In what way, specifically?


This may sound bizarre, but you *have* to realize that the observer is
*part* of the universe,

Obviously.


and neither could exist without the other.

The universe without me can not exist, because "universe" is defined as
including me? Or what do you want to say?


The
prevailing view, that the Big Bang ultimately results in us (the
observer) to be here is only one perspective. There is no reason not
to look at it the other way; our observation of the universe results
in the Big Bang,

There is *lots* of reason not to look at it the other way. We know quite
well how the Big Bang lead to our existence, ultimately - but we have no
evidence at all to think that our observation of the universe could
somehow cause (or have caused) the Big Bang! Is this a strange view of
the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, or what?



which must represent the furthest point we can
observe (since the universe must have a finite age).

Why must it?


I would like to posit that the prejudice towards the prevailing view
is based more on its compatibility with Judeo-Christian mythology and
not by its apparent contradiction with the implications of Quantum
Mechanics.

I would like to posit that you don't know what you are talking about.



Does anyone else have a problem with the Big Bang as "process" as
opposed to "event"?

*What* process?


Bye,
Bjoern

nightbat wrote

Alastair wrote:

Most people would consider the big bang is an "event" in the past.
However, this is just one way to look at time: The deeper we look into
space, the further back in time we see. If we assume space is flat,
then the most distant galaxies we observe are unique, and thus the
furthest observable point, the surface of last scattering, is also
unique and not directly related to the "history" of our universe.

What this means is that the pictures of the CMB coming out of projects
like WMAP are not "baby pictures" of our universe, but observations of
the distant universe as it is at the time of recombination at *that*
spatial location. If you could see beyond the scattering surface, you
would see all the way back to the Big Bang. However, again this is a
unique region and not *our* Big Bang.

There are two ways to look at the universe: One in which the Big Bang
represents a horizon receding from every point in space at the speed
of light. In doing so, it encompasses an increasingly large region.
The other way to look at the universe is to examine the contents of
this horizon and describe the evolution of the contents as if that
horizon was always there. What is most important here is the fact that
the observer's point of view determines the nature of the universe the
observer sees.

This may sound bizarre, but you *have* to realize that the observer is
*part* of the universe, and neither could exist without the other. The
prevailing view, that the Big Bang ultimately results in us (the
observer) to be here is only one perspective. There is no reason not
to look at it the other way; our observation of the universe results
in the Big Bang, which must represent the furthest point we can
observe (since the universe must have a finite age).

I would like to posit that the prejudice towards the prevailing view
is based more on its compatibility with Judeo-Christian mythology and
not by its apparent contradiction with the implications of Quantum
Mechanics.

Does anyone else have a problem with the Big Bang as "process" as
opposed to "event"?

nightbat

Sure the Big Banger's would since the whole Standard Model
theory premise is built on it. You can't now alter terminology to have a
" process " if there was supposedly nothing anywhere before the
purported point everywhere happening BB " event ".

Additionally, energy nullifies that point beginning Standard Model
premise because resultantly energy can have no beginning or end,
therefore the energy based Universe, macro or quantum, is infinite and
eternal, why, mathematical proof says so. Then can however a process
type of space area Big Bang event happen, sure, via theoretical
preexisting mega super nova colliding multi galaxies in a region of
congested matter galaxy body space we may not be privileged to be able
to observe or detect yet from present frame Earth except only by our
present limited instruments and observable astro periphery frame.
Hopefully as more and more space missions and better observatory
instrument detectors are optically or infrared designed and sent, and
reach out into the immense cosmos, better understanding of Universe
dynamics can be ascertained and our little Earth quadrant location BB
point originating of everything model " event " will perhaps seem the
ancient innocent good old days.


the nightbat

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
You are the "Nodem" from the discussion page on "universe" at Wikipedia?

That's me!

I notice that you do not bother to address any of my arguments there.

We'll get on to those issues soon enough.

Instead of discussing physics, you ramble on about essentially metaphysical
questions.

If I appear to be rambling on about metaphysics, then you are assuming that
certain important facts about the universe are inaccessible to inquiry and
definition (hence the realm of *meta*physics?).

What this means is that the pictures of the CMB coming out of projects
like WMAP are not "baby pictures" of our universe, but observations of
the distant universe as it is at the time of recombination at *that*
spatial location.

Obviously, yes. So what? Have you ever heard of the "cosmological
principle"?

This is my point and I just wanted to confirm it. However, this implies
that as the universe ages, the scattering surface will also evolve. It will
do so very slowly (time appears to run around 0.09% of our rate), but this
region of the universe *is* changing over time.

However, again this is a unique region and not *our* Big Bang.

This makes no sense. The *same* Big Bang was happening everywhere at
once (according to the standard BBT!).

This is assuming a specific *type* of simultaneity. There is an assumption
that the universe is the same age all the way across, as if you could
"step" outside and see the thing as if it exists in an external absolute time
dimension.

There are two ways to look at the universe: One in which the Big Bang
represents a horizon receding from every point in space at the speed
of light.

That would be a very strange way to look at it, IMO.

The other way to look at the universe is to examine the contents of
this horizon and describe the evolution of the contents as if that
horizon was always there.

As far as I can see, *both* of these two ways have little to do with
what the standard BBT actually does do.

Well standard BBT actually doesn't do a very good job of describing the
universe. If we go back to the evolving scattering surface, and move further
out, we arrive at the Big Bang. Here the redshift becomes infinite and time
is effectively frozen from our point of view. However, if time is frozen at
the Big Bang, then information from it (about it) can never reach us: The
furthest point in our universe lies just before (in space, which is just after
in time) the Big Bang. This represents a horizon on which the time it takes
for a single event to occur would be equal to the age of the universe relative
to an observer's position.

I'm sure I've lost you by now, so I'll move on!

the observer's point of view determines the nature of the universe the
observer sees.

In what way, specifically?

You can only observe the universe from the inside. There is no "outside"
other than what we can construct in a heuristic model. This horizon I just
described is a very "real" feature of the universe, not because it is
"there" in an existential way, but because it represents a fundamental
limit on our available knowledge of the universe (hence what the universe
*is* relative to the observer's point of view).

and neither could exist without the other.

The universe without me can not exist, because "universe" is defined as
including me? Or what do you want to say?

It would be obvious to state that you can't have an observer without a
universe, so why not the other way round? If you can only observe the
universe from the inside, then how can you have a universe without an
observer? You can construct a heuristic model of the universe, but this
doesn't become a universe.

There is *lots* of reason not to look at it the other way. We know quite
well how the Big Bang lead to our existence, ultimately - but we have no
evidence at all to think that our observation of the universe could
somehow cause (or have caused) the Big Bang! Is this a strange view of
the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, or what?

Really? We seem to have absolutely no evidence that the universe *isn't*
created by our observation of it, *not* the other way round. You appear to
be expressing a purely cultural bias and not one based on physical facts!

I would like to posit that you don't know what you are talking about.

Really? Take a look in the mirror Bjoern.

Alastair wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...


[snip]


Instead of discussing physics, you ramble on about essentially metaphysical
questions.


If I appear to be rambling on about metaphysics, then you are assuming that
certain important facts about the universe are inaccessible to inquiry and
definition (hence the realm of *meta*physics?).

Yes, indeed.


What this means is that the pictures of the CMB coming out of projects
like WMAP are not "baby pictures" of our universe, but observations of
the distant universe as it is at the time of recombination at *that*
spatial location.

Obviously, yes. So what? Have you ever heard of the "cosmological
principle"?


This is my point and I just wanted to confirm it. However, this implies
that as the universe ages, the scattering surface will also evolve. It will
do so very slowly (time appears to run around 0.09% of our rate), but this
region of the universe *is* changing over time.

Why do you feel the need to point out such obvious things?


However, again this is a unique region and not *our* Big Bang.

This makes no sense. The *same* Big Bang was happening everywhere at
once (according to the standard BBT!).


This is assuming a specific *type* of simultaneity.

Essentially yes. This event was "simultaneous" measured by any co-moving
observers. I already told you that that is the meaning of the "t" in the
RW metric.


There is an assumption
that the universe is the same age all the way across, as if you could
"step" outside and see the thing as if it exists in an external absolute time
dimension.

No, stepping outside is not needed for that. Only co-moving.


There are two ways to look at the universe: One in which the Big Bang
represents a horizon receding from every point in space at the speed
of light.

That would be a very strange way to look at it, IMO.


The other way to look at the universe is to examine the contents of
this horizon and describe the evolution of the contents as if that
horizon was always there.

As far as I can see, *both* of these two ways have little to do with
what the standard BBT actually does do.


Well standard BBT actually doesn't do a very good job of describing the
universe.

Why do you think so?


If we go back to the evolving scattering surface, and move further
out, we arrive at the Big Bang.

What do you mean by "move further out" here?


Here the redshift becomes infinite and time
is effectively frozen from our point of view.

Well, indeed. This singularity is one of the reasons why most
cosmologists think that GR needs to be modified at very high energies,
i.e. that a theory of quantum gravity is needed to describe the very
earliest stages of the universe.


However, if time is frozen at
the Big Bang, then information from it (about it) can never reach us: The
furthest point in our universe lies just before (in space, which is just after
in time) the Big Bang

Yes.


This represents a horizon on which the time it takes
for a single event to occur would be equal to the age of the universe relative
to an observer's position.

I'm sure I've lost you by now, so I'll move on!

No, I understand fairly well what you mean.

I only don't see what all of that has to do with your assertion above
that "the standard BBT actually doesn't do a very good job of describing
the universe".


[snip]


and neither could exist without the other.

The universe without me can not exist, because "universe" is defined as
including me? Or what do you want to say?


It would be obvious to state that you can't have an observer without a
universe, so why not the other way round?

I already explained why. Below.


If you can only observe the
universe from the inside, then how can you have a universe without an
observer?

Huh? Sorry, I don't see any problem there.


You can construct a heuristic model of the universe, but this
doesn't become a universe.

What has that to do with the question if there is an observer or not?


There is *lots* of reason not to look at it the other way. We know quite
well how the Big Bang lead to our existence, ultimately - but we have no
evidence at all to think that our observation of the universe could
somehow cause (or have caused) the Big Bang! Is this a strange view of
the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, or what?


Really? We seem to have absolutely no evidence that the universe *isn't*
created by our observation of it, *not* the other way round.

So what? If we have no evidence that this is not true, why on earth
should that imply that this is true?


You appear to
be expressing a purely cultural bias and not one based on physical
facts!

No. I am merely pointing out that the absence of contrary evidence for a
hypothesis is not evidence for the validity of that hypothesis.



I would like to posit that you don't know what you are talking about.


Really? Take a look in the mirror Bjoern.

I see someone there who understands more cosmology than you.


Bye,
Bjoern

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Alastair wrote:

It would be obvious to state that you can't have an observer without a
universe, so why not the other way round? If you can only observe the
universe from the inside, then how can you have a universe without an
observer?

If nobody is around to see you at any given moment, do YOU cease to exist?

The universe doesn't need an observer to exist, either inside or outside.. any
more than you need to consciously decide to make your heart beat from the time
you are born to the time you die.

Sam Wormley wrote in message news:FYQdd.282322$MQ5.26701@attbi_s52...
Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Err.. Thanks Sam?

What's your point.. have I been lead astray and need educating in the
true path of wisdom... is this what you do in denominational affairs
at UUF Ames?

However, if this is for the sake of the other readers and posters to
this thread, then thanks for your support.

Alastair wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote in message news:FYQdd.282322$MQ5.26701@attbi_s52...

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html


Err.. Thanks Sam?

What's your point.. have I been lead astray and need educating in the
true path of wisdom... is this what you do in denominational affairs
at UUF Ames?

However, if this is for the sake of the other readers and posters to
this thread, then thanks for your support.

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial is good for review for many of us,
Alastair. It is interesting that I am involved with the UUFA, but it
does offer me an additional community of intellectuals, most having
no need for religion, like myself... And a good place for scientific
sharing.

-Sam

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

[snip]

What this means is that the pictures of the CMB coming out of projects
like WMAP are not "baby pictures" of our universe, but observations of
the distant universe as it is at the time of recombination at *that*
spatial location.

Obviously, yes. So what? Have you ever heard of the "cosmological
principle"?

This is my point and I just wanted to confirm it. However, this implies
that as the universe ages, the scattering surface will also evolve. It will
do so very slowly (time appears to run around 0.09% of our rate), but this
region of the universe *is* changing over time.

Why do you feel the need to point out such obvious things?

So we agree that the scattering surface is changing over time as it moves
away from us. Assuming that the surface represents a know temperature of
recombination, then the number of photons being released is also increasing
over time. So does this imply that the baryon-photon ratio is also changing
over time. What does standard BBT say about that?

However, again this is a unique region and not *our* Big Bang.

This makes no sense. The *same* Big Bang was happening everywhere at
once (according to the standard BBT!).

This is assuming a specific *type* of simultaneity.

Essentially yes. This event was "simultaneous" measured by any co-moving
observers. I already told you that that is the meaning of the "t" in the
RW metric.

This isn't exactly what I meant. When I observe the universe, I essentially see
the information that just arrived at my location. If you consider that it took
time for that information to reach me, then I am observing the past. However,
if you normalize the system so that the information traveling from its source
does so instantaneously, the I am observing the present. In this sense, the Big
Bang exists in my present (based on this form of simultaneity).

So rephrasing the above, "The *same* Big Bang *is* happening everywhere at
once".

There is an assumption
that the universe is the same age all the way across, as if you could
"step" outside and see the thing as if it exists in an external absolute time
dimension.

No, stepping outside is not needed for that. Only co-moving.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure if co-moving
coordinates really make sense anyway: Co-moving coordinates imply that
each galaxy is "stationary" relative to the Hubble flow. So even though a
distant galaxy "recedes" from us, it remains in the same inertial frame (no
SR time dilation). This would imply you could connect a rigid rod (let say
100 mega parsecs long) between one galaxy and another. If the rigid rod
does not expand with the universe, then if one galaxy is kept fixed at one
end of the rod, then the other will be moving at around 7,200 km/s relative
to the rod.

The implication here is that *everything* expands with the universe. So the
expansion can be thought of as just a difference between the concept of
length here and there (in one form of simultaneity), or a overall expansion
of everything in the universe (in the "same time everywhere" simultaneity).

[snip]

Well standard BBT actually doesn't do a very good job of describing the
universe.

Why do you think so?

I think you answered that question below.

If we go back to the evolving scattering surface, and move further
out, we arrive at the Big Bang.

What do you mean by "move further out" here?

Further distance from our point of observation. If you consider redshift
represents distance from us, the scattering surface at 1089 is closer than
the Big Bang at infinity.

Here the redshift becomes infinite and time
is effectively frozen from our point of view.

Well, indeed. This singularity is one of the reasons why most
cosmologists think that GR needs to be modified at very high energies,
i.e. that a theory of quantum gravity is needed to describe the very
earliest stages of the universe.

So are you saying that "standard BBT actually doesn't do a very good job
of describing the universe" since it is based on GR?

[snip]

There is *lots* of reason not to look at it the other way. We know quite
well how the Big Bang lead to our existence, ultimately - but we have no
evidence at all to think that our observation of the universe could
somehow cause (or have caused) the Big Bang! Is this a strange view of
the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, or what?

Really? We seem to have absolutely no evidence that the universe *isn't*
created by our observation of it, *not* the other way round.

So what? If we have no evidence that this is not true, why on earth
should that imply that this is true?

So things that have no evidence (in that no one has seen an inflaton, WIMP
of Dark Energy) means that inflation, CDM and Lambda aren't true?

Doesn't that put a big hole in standard BBT?

You appear to be expressing a purely cultural bias and not one based on
physical facts!

No. I am merely pointing out that the absence of contrary evidence for a
hypothesis is not evidence for the validity of that hypothesis.

My point exactly!

I would like to posit that you don't know what you are talking about.

Really? Take a look in the mirror Bjoern.

I see someone there who understands more cosmology than you.

Kind of like a scholar in the middle ages who knew more about the Ptolemaic
Cosmological model than the "lay" person. If you are implying your
understanding of how the universe works is better than mine, then I think you
are sadly mistaken.