Is it true, that particles on their smallest level, seem to pop in and out of existence...?

[Neogaia777]

Also wonder if all possible happenings of everything that could possibly happen anywhere at any time, actually are all happening somewhere (in the universe) at the same time or right now in time, all the time, and at every moment in time...?

Also, how something 4 light years away, is seen at four years (old, I guess you could say, if that even applies now or anymore) and something 46 billion light years away, is being seen at 46 billion light years in the past, and how gravity bends light, and black holes bend it enough to suck it in and absorb light...

The universe is truly a marvelous and mysterious place isn't it...

God Bless!

I wonder if all possibilities, all of everything and anything that could ever even possibly happen, is happening "everywhere or somewhere" at "now" and in this moment of time, and at every moment in time, all the time...

Especially if there is other dimensions to the/this universe or a multiverse, or many layers to this universe...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

How can we see 46.5 billion light years away (or old, at least, but only if it has always been moving at the speed of light, and if not, may even be older) If we can see 46.5 billion light years away in either direction, then how can the universe only aprox 14 billion years old...?

And that is only the limit of what we can see, and it (the universe) goes beyond and farther than that even and no one seems to know how far... Yet none of it could have been moving at the speed of light due to infinite mass...?

And why does it not seem to be expanding from a definable center...? I mean if the Big Bang is true, why these things...? And the universe is expanding and moving faster and faster in that expansion, so were just at the very beginning of the explosion, or what...? if that's how it happened that is...?

And since any material moving at the speed of light has infinite mass, and turns into a black hole, why don't we have a universe full of black holes...? Or will have a universe full of black holes in the future, if the universe keeps continuing in speeding up in it's expansion... Did the initial big bang start out slow, or what...?

Needless to say, this doesn't seem to add up, and some of it just doesn't make sense, so some of these theories must be wrong... And need to be rethought out or reexamined...

God Bless!

Some questions I have about the universe...?

Quote from that post: "So we can observe 46.5 billion light-years in every direction. Everything beyond that horizon is unknown."

For the big bang to be true, or at least for the universe to be as old (or "young" is perhaps a better word) as they say it is, what we can see would have been have to have been traveling at "three times the speed of light", and since there is even more beyond what we can see, it would have to be even faster than that, for the age of the universe to be correct... And that means the universe should be all black holes, due to infinite mass...

It just doesn't make sense...? doesn't add up...?

And the expansion doesn't seem to have a definable center...? It, the strings of galaxies in the universe all seem to be expanding and pushing out from one another pretty equally from the dark areas or centers between or among the strings and clusters of galaxies (and strings of those) in the universe, with no real definable center...

And if it is still in state of acceleration, it must be very young and small still, and won't it end up in all black holes...?

God Bless!

I saw a show where Stephen Hawking proposed an alternate theory... And to describe it, he used and indoor gym or basketball court and it was full of steel ball bearings all squared off and in equal distance and squared off from one another... And it was static and nothing was moving or in motion...

Then he removed just five of the ball bearings from the hundreds of them, (unbalanced it) (disrupted, or interrupted, the static nature of it) then they all started moving and swirling around one another, and gathering up and together, and clustering in groups and strings, and swirling around one another, and it acted like, and all the ball bearings behaved like, much like the universe that we observe does or seems to...

But that would not be a "big bang" but something else, if that is how the universe started out...

It would explain a lot though...

Now in this picture, all the ball bearings would eventually all gravitate to all form up, and cluster up, in the middle or on one center (eventually)... But that's only because this description or picture or illustration lacks to describe or account for how the unfilled, unoccupied (dark areas or centers in a picture of the universe) anyway, it does not account for the dark areas and it's force, or their forces pushing outwards causing expansion... But it, or they, the dark areas, do not seem to have originated from one center, but they seem to all each be centers of their own, or started out as centers of their own...

That the universe did not originate from one single point, but was laid out like a (giant) sheet of paper, or a (giant) three dimensional cube, with "points" of material that began as equal in every way, and was static, and then, it was "disrupted" or messed with somehow, causing it to be what it is, or what we see now...

And a force was included to cause "expansion" of it all, at that time also...

I wonder if the force causing the expansion is in balance and harmony, or is equal somehow, with the force that tends to make it all want to cluster all back together... Or is (the force expanding it)"just enough" to "equally counter" (or balance) the force that makes it all want to cluster back together...? That would have to be a pretty delicate balance... That could or would it keep it all going for a very, very long time...

God Bless!

In this case, "let there be light" would not have started by or with a big bang, but the moment all the static material was set in motion, or disrupted, or unbalanced, and in that moment, heat, light, energy, would have all began... And when the force causing the expansion was applied (to counter and balance out the other force) as well...

So, I don't know if the big bang is correct, and I don't know if the age of the universe is correct either...?

At this point the universe starting out already stretched or laid out in a static state, (then set in motion and the forces applied, all that), is making much more sense at this point... And who knows exactly when or how that started...

God Bless!

 

[Erik Nelson]

virtual particles pop into and out of existence, because of the energy existing even in seemingly. empty space. They usually emerge as a particle antiparticle pair. Obeying the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Energy x time = hbar

more energetic virtual particle pairs exist. More briefly and vice versa.

 

[Petros2015]

How can we see 46.5 billion light years away (or old, at least, but only if it has always been moving at the speed of light, and if not, may even be older) If we can see 46.5 billion light years away in either direction, then how can the universe only aprox 14 billion years old...?

Exactly, the further you stare off into space, the more you are looking backward in time. The light you see from the moon is 1.3 seconds old. The light from the sun is 8 minutes and 20 seconds. The sun sets a few minutes before you see it set. Some of the stars you see way way way far out there may have already gone out before you were born.

 

[Petros2015]

It's been awhile and there's another book I liked which I can't find, but I believe I've heard it said that you can think of the universe kind of like the surface of a balloon. So rather than a big bang, it may be more like a big inflate. Everything is on that 'surface' and as it inflates everything expands away from everything else on the surface of the balloon. Weirdly, the expansion seems to be accelerating instead of staying static or collapsing or settling down. Everything is moving away from everything else, more and more 'air' is inflating the balloon as time goes on.

 

[Petros2015]

*POP!* lol

 

[Neogaia777]

It's been awhile and there's another book I liked which I can't find, but I believe I've heard it said that you can think of the universe kind of like the surface of a balloon. So rather than a big bang, it may be more like a big inflate. Everything is on that 'surface' and as it inflates everything expands away from everything else on the surface of the balloon. Weirdly, the expansion seems to be accelerating instead of staying static or collapsing or settling down. Everything is moving away from everything else, more and more 'air' is inflating the balloon as time goes on.

I've seen that, and heard of it being explained to me that way... But, the problem is, it's not a perfect illustration though, because in the balloon illustration, there is a definable "center" that it is expanding or accelerating outward from, but it's just not so with universe... There just seems to "not be" any single, definable center, is the problem, which is very odd...

But many multiple centers (dark areas) that push out on the rest of the material in the universe, but "not all from one definable center" or single point Which is very odd...

Thanks though...

God Bless!

 

[essentialsaltes]

I've seen that, and heard of it being explained to me that way... But, the problem is, it's not a perfect illustration though, because in the balloon illustration, there is a definable "center" that it is expanding or accelerating outward from, but it's just not so with universe... There just seems to "not be" any single, definable center, is the problem, which is very odd...

I know it's hard to picture, but in this analogy (which yes, isn't perfect) the universe is just the rubber part of the balloon. The 'galaxies' and grid lines are drawn on the rubber of the balloon. Distances in space are measured across the rubber surface of the balloon. The 'air' inside and outside the balloon is not part of the analogy. So while it's true that the balloon has a center in the middle of the air inside, that point is not part of the 'universe', since it's not part of the rubber. If you were an ant crawling around on the rubber of the balloon, you would not be able to find a center of the expansion. Everything expands equally around you.

 

[sjastro]

And since any material moving at the speed of light has infinite mass, and turns into a black hole, why don't we have a universe full of black holes...? Or will have a universe full of black holes in the future, if the universe keeps continuing in speeding up in it's expansion... Did the initial big bang start out slow, or what...?

It is a common misconception that objects moving at the speed of light become Black Holes.
Any object with mass can never be accelerated to the speed of light let alone become a Black Hole.
The increase in relativistic mass is observer dependant, in the object’s frame of reference its proper mass does not change irrespective of its velocity.

This can be made clearer by considering the momentum P of an object of mass m.
At low velocities v, P=mv.
At higher velocities we need to consider the relativistic momentum P=mv/√(1-v²/c²) where c is the speed of light.
The question now arises what exactly is causing the relativistic momentum to increase with velocity v.
Is it due to increase in the mass m/√(1-v²/c²), or the velocity v/√(1-v²/c²)?

The convention is it is due to the velocity while the mass is equated with proper mass which is independent of velocity.
The relativistic mass of an object is simply the proper mass plus the kinetic energy of the object which depends on velocity.

The other point is while objects with mass in space-time cannot reach or exceed c the expansion velocity of space-time itself can exceed c.
This is important in the very early history of the Universe where expansion velocities much higher than c are required to prevent remote regions from being causally disconnected and prevent the Universe from uniformly cooling after the Big Bang.

This is the Horizon Problem.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Is it true, that particles on their smallest level, that we can detect, seem to pop in and out of existence...?

That is not true. Electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. do not "pop in and out of existence".
You are thinking about virtual particles.

 

[RealityCheck01]

How can we see 46.5 billion light years away (or old, at least, but only if it has always been moving at the speed of light, and if not, may even be older) If we can see 46.5 billion light years away in either direction, then how can the universe only aprox 14 billion years old...?

Because the universe is expanding. See What is the evidence for the Big Bang? for the overwhelming physical evidence for an expanding universe.
If the Universe is only 14 billion years old, why isn't the most distant object we can see 7 billion light years away?

Where was the center of the Big Bang? (The Big Bang has no center.)

"..., and turns into a black hole" is wrong as already pointed out. No material object can move at the speed of light. The masses in GR are rest masses. Relativistic mass is a teaching aid and not really used in relativistic physics.

Needed to be said: This is textbook physics that adds up.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I don't think there is any reason to read to much into quantum Physics in your day to day life. For example is the cat alive or dead or both? Stupid. It is alive if you put it in the box and it was alive hahahaha. It always was alive. To read into the macro world what goes on in the quantum is absurd. For example could a car pop in and out of existence from nowhere? Uhhh duh no.

So what if a quark can its just fun geeky stuff that those of us that are into that are into but in means .... well ....... sorry but nothing. It never did mean anything and ....... it never will.

Quantum is Quantum.

Macro is Macro.

The two shall never meet in a way you would find interesting.

Unless of course you "believe" in that type of thing then it has some meaning for creation and it all points to God.

As for me I don't believe in it. I think Quantum is quantum.

 

[Neogaia777]

It is a common misconception that objects moving at the speed of light become Black Holes.
Any object with mass can never be accelerated to the speed of light let alone become a Black Hole.
The increase in relativistic mass is observer dependant, in the object’s frame of reference its proper mass does not change irrespective of its velocity.

This can be made clearer by considering the momentum P of an object of mass m.
At low velocities v, P=mv.
At higher velocities we need to consider the relativistic momentum P=mv/√(1-v²/c²) where c is the speed of light.
The question now arises what exactly is causing the relativistic momentum to increase with velocity v.
Is it due to increase in the mass m/√(1-v²/c²), or the velocity v/√(1-v²/c²)?

The convention is it is due to the velocity while the mass is equated with proper mass which is independent of velocity.
The relativistic mass of an object is simply the proper mass plus the kinetic energy of the object which depends on velocity.

The other point is while objects with mass in space-time cannot reach or exceed c the expansion velocity of space-time itself can exceed c.
This is important in the very early history of the Universe where expansion velocities much higher than c are required to prevent remote regions from being causally disconnected and prevent the Universe from uniformly cooling after the Big Bang.

This is the Horizon Problem.

Do you perhaps have a practical illustration or example of this maybe...?

Is infinite mass wrong...?

I still do not see how the big bang theory can be correct, or at least, accepted as "fact", at this point... The universe "behaves" as if it was already stretched or laid out in a static state, and then was set in motion, for one...? As for another, there is, and the expansion is not occurring from a single definable center, for another...?

And, then we can see 46.5 billion light years in either direction, yet the big bang is said to happen only aprox 14 billion years ago, and that is "only what we can see", who knows how big the universe truly is, hundreds to thousands (maybe even perhaps), of billions (trillions) of light years across of, or in size, (maybe even bigger than that) anyway, yet the big bang only happened aprox. 14 billion years ago...?

How does one explain these problems/issues...? Just doesn't make sense...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Because the universe is expanding. See What is the evidence for the Big Bang? for the overwhelming physical evidence for an expanding universe.
If the Universe is only 14 billion years old, why isn't the most distant object we can see 7 billion light years away?

Where was the center of the Big Bang? (The Big Bang has no center.)

"..., and turns into a black hole" is wrong as already pointed out. No material object can move at the speed of light. The masses in GR are rest masses. Relativistic mass is a teaching aid and not really used in relativistic physics.

Needed to be said: This is textbook physics that adds up.

I checked you links and your info and it still just doesn't make sense and does not add up IMO... There are many problems with what they are saying...

The universe behaves like it started out in static state and then was set in motion (and a expanding force added)... Every explosion should have a center and it (the expansion of the universe) doesn't... then the size of the universe... it cannot be only 14 billions years old...

And of course the expansion (that has no definable center) is accelerating, but it is accelerating (the forces pushing out on it) are accelerating at a rate that perfectly keeps up with, and balances out it's natural tendency with the force that would make it all come back together again, or cluster up and form in, or form in on a center of some point, or collapse back in on itself basically, the expanding force that is mildly accelerating is perfectly keeping up with that other force...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

It is a common misconception that objects moving at the speed of light become Black Holes.
Any object with mass can never be accelerated to the speed of light let alone become a Black Hole.
The increase in relativistic mass is observer dependant, in the object’s frame of reference its proper mass does not change irrespective of its velocity.

This can be made clearer by considering the momentum P of an object of mass m.
At low velocities v, P=mv.
At higher velocities we need to consider the relativistic momentum P=mv/√(1-v²/c²) where c is the speed of light.
The question now arises what exactly is causing the relativistic momentum to increase with velocity v.
Is it due to increase in the mass m/√(1-v²/c²), or the velocity v/√(1-v²/c²)?

The convention is it is due to the velocity while the mass is equated with proper mass which is independent of velocity.
The relativistic mass of an object is simply the proper mass plus the kinetic energy of the object which depends on velocity.

The other point is while objects with mass in space-time cannot reach or exceed c the expansion velocity of space-time itself can exceed c.
This is important in the very early history of the Universe where expansion velocities much higher than c are required to prevent remote regions from being causally disconnected and prevent the Universe from uniformly cooling after the Big Bang.

This is the Horizon Problem.

No offense, but it seems like they are desperately trying to and are "grasping at straws" to justify or explain the big bang, cause of all the problems they are increasingly running into with it, and with explaining the "theory"... instead of considering that it could be something "else" altogether...

Like it starting out as a static universe (already laid and stretched out) (and then set into motion) (and an expanding force applied) which makes much more sense...

Even if we can see no center, (cause we are in the center, from our vantage point), (cause we are part of that expansion, and are in motion and it appears to us that it is all expanding outward from us because of that) (and that would be true of anyone's vantage point in the universe)...

In order for the universe to be "as big as it is", or it "seems to be", or "may be"... Things/stuff/us (matter and physical material), would have to be, or will have to be, or have been moving and in motion well, well "beyond the speed of light" for the universe to be as big as it is, and how does that work...?

Is infinite mass wrong...? And if so, can you show me simply "why" or "how", simply please...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

It is a common misconception that objects moving at the speed of light become Black Holes.
Any object with mass can never be accelerated to the speed of light let alone become a Black Hole.
The increase in relativistic mass is observer dependant, in the object’s frame of reference its proper mass does not change irrespective of its velocity.

This can be made clearer by considering the momentum P of an object of mass m.
At low velocities v, P=mv.
At higher velocities we need to consider the relativistic momentum P=mv/√(1-v²/c²) where c is the speed of light.
The question now arises what exactly is causing the relativistic momentum to increase with velocity v.
Is it due to increase in the mass m/√(1-v²/c²), or the velocity v/√(1-v²/c²)?

The convention is it is due to the velocity while the mass is equated with proper mass which is independent of velocity.
The relativistic mass of an object is simply the proper mass plus the kinetic energy of the object which depends on velocity.

The other point is while objects with mass in space-time cannot reach or exceed c the expansion velocity of space-time itself can exceed c.
This is important in the very early history of the Universe where expansion velocities much higher than c are required to prevent remote regions from being causally disconnected and prevent the Universe from uniformly cooling after the Big Bang.

This is the Horizon Problem.

OK, explain to me, in very simple terms, how the universe can be "so large" and it all beginning with only one big bang and is only 14 billion years old, and I will be satisfied...

And again, it might help me if you could explain to me simply why or how infinite mass is wrong, (cause I would think it would have to be in order to support what you say)...

How did all that physical material get all the way "out there" if it had to have moved, or been moving, well beyond the speed of light, if all proceeded from one single center...?

God Bless!

 

[Petros2015]

Maybe the particles aren't popping in and out, maybe they are just passing through our 'flatland'

 

[RealityCheck01]

I checked you links and your info and it still just doesn't make sense and does not add up IMO.

Sorry that you do not understand what maybe millions of science students understand. Try reading and understanding Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology again and ask some coherent questions.

The Big Bang is not an explosion. There is no center of an explosion that does not exist!
The age of the universe is measured to be 13.799±0.021 billion years.

The Big Bang is the observed expansion of our 4 dimensional spacetime in which the distance between points gets larger. The balloon analogy is a simple to understand visualization of this.

Ends with some incoherent accelerating universe stuff.
The expansion of the universe is measured to be accelerating and we label the cause of that acceleration dark energy. The exact cause of this is not determined yet. General relativity has a parameter called the cosmological constant. When the cosmological constant has a positive value, there is a negative pressure on matter in the universe which accelerates the expansion. A positive cosmological constant is a good candidate for dark energy.[/QUOTE]

 

[Neogaia777]

Sorry that you do not understand what maybe millions of science students understand. Try reading and understanding Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology again and ask some coherent questions.

I did... And you still did not answer them...?

(and BTW those "students" only "know what they are taught or are indoctrinated into", and rarely ever question it or ever even try to think "outside" of it/that)...

And, I do, so... (and I wish more other people would)...

The Big Bang is not an explosion. There is no center of an explosion that does not exist!

What is then...? If not an explosion, or an expansion from one center (point) (of origin) then, what is it...?

The age of the universe is measured to be 13.799±0.021 billion years.

Again how is that determined...? (and see the next few following sentences please)...

And, beyond that, how is that even logical...? considering the "size of the known universe" and the "possible size of the entire universe", and those distances...?

And you still have not answered about my questions about infinite mass and light speed and "all that", that would apply to this also...?

These are some very simple, basic questions and I do not understand why you just can't give me some simple, basic answers to them...? (please)...?

The Big Bang is the observed expansion of our 4 dimensional spacetime in which the distance between points gets larger. The balloon analogy is a simple to understand visualization of this.

Again, even if the universe were expanding from one single center, how could we ever know it...? considering that from our vantage point, or "any vantage point", it would appear to all be expanding outward from our position... and even if we were in the very center of it, (the universe and supposed origin of the big bang) how would we be able to know that any differently from anywhere else...?

The expansion of the universe is measured to be accelerating and we label the cause of that acceleration dark energy. The exact cause of this is not determined yet. General relativity has a parameter called the cosmological constant. When the cosmological constant has a positive value, there is a negative pressure on matter in the universe which accelerates the expansion. A positive cosmological constant is a good candidate for dark energy.

Yes, I understand that much...

The dark areas of the universe (but not just only there, that I also understand) but, talking about the universe on large scale, the dark regions in the spaces between the strings and clusters of galaxies, ect, that appear to empty for the most part, and very dark, are said to full of a lot of this theoretical dark matter/energy, most especially... and are pushing (out I guess you could say) on all the other "stuff" (regions with a lot of normal matter/energy)...

What's you point to saying that...? I don't think I asked you or said anything about that...?

God Bless!

 

[sjastro]

Neogaia777 let me address the points from your various posts.

First of all the case for “infinite mass”.
If an object such as a Black Hole has “infinite mass”, the gravitational force between that object and any other mass is going to be “infinite” as defined by the inverse square law.

F = Gm₁m₂/r²

The presence of “infinite mass” in the Universe will cause matter in the Universe to collapse onto itself due to gravity.
Then there is the observational evidence that shows the most massive Black Holes occupying the centre of galaxies are billions of solar masses; certainly very massive but not infinite.
So we can eliminate “infinite mass” as a possibility.

Secondly the case for the Universe being static in the past which then began to expand.
This doesn’t work either as Einstein showed in the early 20th century a static Universe would also undergo gravitational collapse with a finite amount of mass.

To counteract gravity Einstein introduced a cosmological constant which is a repulsion force and forces the Universe into a state of equilibrium and makes it static. The explanation for this was given here.
So the question arises what would throw a static Universe out of equilibrium in order for it to expand?
The observational evidence contradicts this idea as well.
The observed Cosmic Radiation Background is composed of hot dense plasma during the formative stages of the Universe after the Big Bang which would not exist if the Universe was originally static.

Finally objects moving in space-time cannot exceed the speed of light c, but the recession velocity v of distant objects can.
Distant objects that are not gravitationally bound are being “carried” by expanding space-time that can exceed c.

In fact our Universe is much larger than we can observe.
The size of the observable Universe is limited by the Particle Horizon.
Beyond this horizon v-c > c for an object and photons emitted by the object will never reach us.