Cosmological problem

wrote in message ...
On 16 Nov 2003 17:09:37 -0800, (TrAI) wrote:

wrote in message ...
Cosmological problem

Some big telescopes (and some bigger to come) claim to see so far back
in time that they are actually witnissing events shortly after the big
bang. Hypothetically one could thus see the big bang itself.
Now imagine one telescope looking north and seeing this far back.
Imagine a second one looking south in the same time: he also looks
this far back.
The events both see are one and the same, but are seen at locations as
far apart as possible.
Doesn't sound logical to me.
I read this article : "Space seen as finite, shaped like a soccerball"
( http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...er_031008.html ),
that provides a possible solution. But how does traditional cosmology
explain this?


Hmmm... I think it might have something to do with that the point of
the big bang isn't inside the universe, and that the universe grows
everywhere, not just from a central point inside it... Its hard to
visualize such a thing, it needs more than three dimensions... It
might be easier if we think about a one-dimensional universe:

| ^
| | |
| | | |
B| | | | S
| | | |
| | |
| v
|-Time--

where the B is the point of the BB, the Y axis is the size of the
universe, and the X axis shows how the universe flows along a second
dimension from the BB as the time inside the universe goes by, and |
are the universe... The shape of the universe might be wrong though,
it might be a circle around the centre, or something else, but this is
just an attempt at a way of thinking about it, so it might not be to
important, the important part is that any bending of the one dimension
of the universe wouldn't be seen from inside it, it would look like
one straight line, since no one inside it would be able to see
anything along other dimensions that is not a part of the inside of
the universe...

Though I might be completely wrong in my understanding of this
subject, but then, I guess, someone will correct me... ;-)


Your idea sounds a bit like the soccerball. Anyway it would explain
why one could look at the same far/past event in different directions.
What bothers me most is the idea that there wouldn't be a
'center'/origin, because that's something the big bang theory implies
imho: before there was a situation of singularity. That's a point,
right?

(Tough stuff to understand...)

Hmmm... I am sorry if the figure I was posting got messed up; It looks
like it did here on Google at least... The part with the B was
supposed to go in between the upper and lower part , so that the B was
at the left and the S at the right in...

There would be a center, a point of singularity, but it would not be
one place inside the universe, since every place inside it would have
been part of the BB. The center would lay along a different dimension
so to say, one we can't see to, not that that matters, since the early
universe was rather dense and energy filled, so it wouldnt be easy to
see anything beyond a certain point along this dimension... As time
goes by the universe would move farther from the point of singularity,
and would grow larger... But again, this is just how I see it, so it
might be wrong...

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

In message , J. Scott Miller
writes

1) No telescope we can invent can detect radiation closer to the moment
of the big bang than the surface of last scatter. This would represent
the era when the density of the universe was much as that of the
surface of a star. Just as we cannot see inside the Sun, we cannot see
beyond the point where the temperature and density of the universe was
this high.

Is there any radiation, or anything else (gravitational radiation ??)
that would let us see deeper? We can see all the way to the Sun's core
using neutrinos, for instance.

I don't know about gravitational waves, but yes, using neutrinos, we
would be able to see "deeper" - back to earlier times.


Bye,
Bjoern

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , J. Scott Miller
writes


1) No telescope we can invent can detect radiation closer to the
moment of the big bang than the surface of last scatter. This would
represent the era when the density of the universe was much as that of
the surface of a star. Just as we cannot see inside the Sun, we
cannot see beyond the point where the temperature and density of the
universe was this high.


Is there any radiation, or anything else (gravitational radiation ??)
that would let us see deeper? We can see all the way to the Sun's core
using neutrinos, for instance.

At this point in time, we lack the technology or know how to detect this
background of neutrinos and antineutrinos. It is thought they may be at a
slightly cooler temperature than the CMBR (about 2K vs. 3K) and should pervade
the universe (which became transparent to them about 2 seconds into the universe).

And, gravitational waves also remain elusive.

So, for now, we are stuck with what we can observe and are attempting to gather
from it how the universe might have been at early epochs and how it has changed
since.