Some questions I have about the universe...?

[Radrook]

How does it work in relation to normal matter...?

Thanks,

God Bless!

Its relation to regular matter is that whenever the two touch they destroy each other. That's why anti matter even though it would be a great fuel for space travel would need to be suspended electromagnetically away from the chamber walls where it would be encased. Otherwise the ship would blow up. It is extremely rare in our detectable area of the universe but that doesn't rule out that possibility of entire galaxies being composed of it as the following excerpt points out.

Antimatter may exist in relatively large amounts in far-away galaxies due to cosmic inflation in the primordial time of the universe. Antimatter galaxies, if they exist, are expected to have the same chemistry and absorption and emission spectra as normal-matter galaxies, and their astronomical objects would be observationally identical, making them difficult to distinguish.[24] NASA is trying to determine if such galaxies exist by looking for X-ray and gamma-ray signatures of annihilation events in colliding superclusters.[25]

Antimatter - Wikipedia

 

[cre8id]

A balloon extends outward from a center though doesn't it...?

And aren't there several "balloon centers" in the places in the map of the universe where there's just dark areas....?

Or, am I wrong about that...?

God Bless!

Hi, Neogaia777!
First, I am not a scientists and do not claim to be. My background is in the mechanical engineering and technology fields.

One of the standard methods of illustrating the expansion of space in the BBT (Big Bang Theory) is to use a balloon with dots marked on the outside of it. As the balloon expands, the surface of balloon stretches and the dots spread apart from each other. Most people do not really understand this simple model of space-time expansion because:

1. we see the balloon in three dimensions, not four... and
2. the balloon's surface represents ALL of space-time, which is apparently curved (similar to the balloon's surface), not flat like a a piece of paper. So everything we see in the universe is somewhat oversimplified as being represented by dots on the surface.... but there is no center to the 'Standard' model of the BBT, unlike the balloon model when looked at as a whole (which has an obvious center to the 3-D shape).
​

I hope the videos below clarify this.

BTW, I am a YEC (Young Earth Creationist)... to let you know my bias (we are ALL biased).

Videos:
Evolutionary (i.e., standard) Cosmology:
(The more or less 'Standard' Cosmology is also accepted by most Theistic Evolutionists as well as Progressive (Old Earth) Creationists (such as Hugh Ross and Dr. Michael S. Heiser)):

The Center of the Universe

Relativity 4 - Curved Spacetime

One of the Christian Creationist Cosmology Theories:

Starlight and Time - Dr. Russell Humphreys

Starlight and Time Revisited - Dr. Russell Humphreys & Dr. John Baumgardner

​

 

[Michael]

Is that what happens in a black hole, or not...? Is antimatter atoms...? Can they be seen like matter, or only detected in like particle accelerator's and such...?

I know these seem like very basic questions, but, I am curious and want to know...?

I do not claim to know a whole lot about it...

God Bless!

Nobody really knows what happens inside a "black hole". I personally think they are composed of neutron material, but that's a completely non-standard opinion. Just know there's a Pauli exclusion argument that comes into play with respect to their ultimate density.

Antimatter can be composed of electrons, neutrons and protons that are the mirror opposite of their matter counterparts. So far I believe we've only managed to create hydrogen antimatter atoms.

Antimatter could conceivably including Iron atoms and Nickel atoms and oxygen atoms, and water, and all things that might give rise to "antimatter life" in the universe in fact. Such atoms would emit light that is exactly the same (as far as we currently know) as ordinary atoms. In other words, we would not necessary know if any given star was composed of matter or antimatter simply by looking at its emission spectrum.

 

[Michael]

So, they are probably farther away, and may be very different from what were seeing of them, right...? But how does that tie into the age of the universe...?

The supposed "age" of the universe can only be "presumed" if you presume that all photon redshift from distant objects is necessarily related to "space expansion" rather than ordinary inelastic scattering in plasma. Their 'expansion' claim is what allows them to calculate an approximate age of the universe by essentially rewinding time backwards until everything collapses to a single point. If however redshift is caused by inelastic scattering, we could be living in a completely static and stationary universe that could be infinite and eternal for all anyone really knows.

 

[Michael]

What about the big bang theory then...? Doesn't it require a center...?

This is a common misconception related to BB theory, and the "balloon" analogy is a bait-and-switch tactic that causes part of that confusion, as is any comparison to Doppler shift.

The balloon analogy is ultimately an example of *moving objects*, not space expansion. The molecules of the outside of the balloon stretch out and move over time. Not only do the dots on the balloon spread apart, the dots themselves get larger too. If that's how it really worked, you're right, the "big bang" would have had a "center".

FYI, it's the mainstream's fault for confusing you. I think they do that on purpose to confuse people and make them feel stupid. The mainstream does a "bait and switch" routine by comparing moving objects to "space expansion" and claiming that one idea (Doppler shift) justifies their "space expansion" claim. That *always* confuses everyone.

In Lambda-CDM the mainstream created a "supernatural" process called "space expansion" that never happens on Earth, never inside of our solar system, never inside of our galaxy, or even our galaxy cluster or our local supercluster of galaxies. Somewhere where humans might presumably never reach, some mystical thing called "space" does a magic expansion act, and something called "space" supposedly 'expands' without "space" being physically defined in the first place. It's a very confusing concept for anyone, and they make it harder by comparing it to balloons and doppler shift which are examples of *moving objects*, not "space expansion".

In the mystical universe of "space expansion", all the 'distances' between distant galaxies are increasing, without any movement of the actual objects. There is therefore no 'center' of the universe in LCDM, the whole of space is simply "expanding". It would all eventually "contract" to a point, but there isn't actually a 'center', the whole of spacetime is simply "expanding". It's confusing, and ultimately it's wrong anyway, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I were you.

 

[Michael]

So, they are probably farther away, and may be very different from what were seeing of them, right...?

Yes. Some of the stars we see probably no longer exist by the time their light get here. Millions and even billions of years may have passed in those distant galaxies by the time their light reaches Earth.

 

[hedrick]

It's worth noting that the kinds of evidence that are used to develop these models is pretty typical of modern science. When you deal with things that are very large or very small, you have to get pretty creative in how to observe them. There's reasonable evidence for the standard model, and reasonable evidence against the alternatives proposed here. I'd rather point you at articles in Wikipedia and various academic web sites, rather than reproducing it here.

No, the balloon analogy isn't an attempt to make things hard. It's not a bad analogy within its limits. There are others. E.g. a loaf of raisin bread expanding as it's baked, with the raisins being galaxies and other objects. All of the analogies have limits, of course, but they're at least as good as the analogies I typically see for the Trinity.

If you want to understand what's actually going on, the best article I've found is Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia

 

[Michael]

It's worth noting that the kinds of evidence that are used to develop these models is pretty typical of modern science. When you deal with things that are very large or very small, you have to get pretty creative in how to observe them. There's reasonable evidence for the standard model, and reasonable evidence against the alternatives proposed here. I'd rather point you at articles in Wikipedia and various academic web sites, rather than reproducing it here.

No, the balloon analogy isn't an attempt to make things hard. It's not a bad analogy within its limits. There are others. E.g. a loaf of raisin bread expanding as it's baked, with the raisins being galaxies and other objects. All of the analogies have limits, of course, but they're at least as good as the analogies I typically see for the Trinity.

If you want to understand what's actually going on, the best article I've found is Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia

FYI, I wasn't trying to suggest or imply that you personally were trying to be misleading by citing the balloon analogy that is commonly used by the mainstream to describe expansion. I'm sorry if that's how it sounded.

I was simply noting that the use of such devices by the mainstream, and their reference to Doppler shift are ultimately misleading ideas. They are the cause of a lot of the confusion when someone is first trying to learn the LCDM model.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'd like to thank all of you guys, you have given me plenty of information to feed on and look into and do some research on/with, thank you guys!

I might have more to post on here after I have looked into it a bit more,

Peace,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm still not understanding how the universe could not be expanding from a "center"... Doesn't, isn't everything that expands, doing so from a point of origin or a center...?

Also still not getting how we could be viewing something 46 billion light years away, and that view or image not being 46 billion years old or ago, and how that jives with how they say the universe is only 13 billion years old...?

Can someone try to explain please...?

Peace,

God Bless!

 

[Michael]

I'm still not understanding how the universe could not be expanding from a "center"... Doesn't, isn't everything that expands, doing so from a point of origin or a center...?

If they were talking about 'expanding/moving objects", yes it would have come from a "point". Since however they claim that "space" does magic expansion tricks, it's not quite so simple. Everything is 'expanding' in LCDM theory, including spacetime itself. Your confusion is *typical*, and it's their fault, not yours. They're deviating from empirical physics and they aren't being clear about that fact. Instead they compare the expansion process to Doppler shift, and all the sorts of things that cause your confusion. That confusion IMO is intentional. It's because their space expansion claim is a "bait and switch" device. They bait your mind with Doppler shift, and then confuse you by switching to "space expansion" which they treat as being "equal" (but aren't). I blame them for any confusion, not you.

Also still not getting how we could be viewing something 46 billion light years away, and that view or image not being 46 billion years old or ago, and how that jives with how they say the universe is only 13 billion years old...?

That is again related to their bait and switch routine. The "objects" (galaxies) in their model are not moving, rather the "space" between galaxy clusters does a magical expansion routine. Since the galaxies are not moving, the "expansion" (of space) process is not limited to the speed of light. They can have any size universe (maybe an infinite one) regardless of the age. If they stuck with empirical physics and moving objects, you'd be right, the universe could not be wider than 27.4 light years across.

The whole confusion process is directly related to that "switch" they did. They baited you with Doppler shift, but Doppler shift is related to *moving objects*. They "switched' in 'space expansion", hence all the confusion. Everyone goes through that confusion process. Don't take it personally.

If the objects/galaxies were moving in LCDM theory it wouldn't be so detached from empirical physics and it wouldn't be so confusing. Since you have to suspend everything you think you know about physics to even "grasp" their claim, it's bound to be confusing.

 

[hedrick]

There is actually a center, sort of. Most of the pictures you see are for the "observable universe," the portion of the universe we can observe from here. That has a center -- us. If you take that chunk of universe, centered on us, and project back to the beginning, it will get smaller and smaller but always have a center.

However it's very unlikely that the universe actually ends at the boundaries of the "observable universe." In particular, it's really unlikely that we're really at the center.

Does the concept of "center" make sense? We actually don't know. The universe could curve back on itself, in which case there's no center. It could be infinite, in which case there's no center. It could be a bubble embedded in something much larger, in which case it might well have a center. The safest assumption is that there isn't one, and if there is, it’s probably outside the part we can see.

But still, the concept of metric space expansion means that even if there’s a center, you have to be careful not to be misled by false analogies. In an explosion, the pieces start in a small package, and expand out from that. In that case the pieces are moving within a framework that’s fixed. In this case, it’s the framework itself that’s expanding. So if you’re thinking that in the early universe there was this pea-sized object surrounded by empty space, and the pea got bigger and took up the space, that’s wrong. There was no surrounding space, because it was space itself that was smaller.

But for the observable universe, yes, there was a center.

It is *very* unlikely that the basic idea of metric expansion is wrong. There’s too many different kinds of evidence.

As to the size being larger than it ought to be. If the universe weren’t expanding, then you’d be right. In 14 billion years, we could only see light from a sphere that’s 14 billon years in radius around us. But it is expanding. The oldest light we can see now started when the universe was smaller, so we were a lot closer to other things. Figuring out just how far away furtherest thing we can see are now isn’t so simple. I’m trusting that astronomers have done the computations properly.

 

[lesliedellow]

I have just realised that I have repeated myself.

However, I will add that, contrary to what Michael seems to think, the astronomy and physics departments of universities around the world are not staffed by complete idiots, who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Neogaia777]

Thanks guys, I appreciate it very much,

Peace,

God Bless!

 

[Michael]

There is actually a center, sort of. Most of the pictures you see are for the "observable universe," the portion of the universe we can observe from here. That has a center -- us. If you take that chunk of universe, centered on us, and project back to the beginning, it will get smaller and smaller but always have a center.

However it's very unlikely that the universe actually ends at the boundaries of the "observable universe." In particular, it's really unlikely that we're really at the center.

Does the concept of "center" make sense? We actually don't know. The universe could curve back on itself, in which case there's no center. It could be infinite, in which case there's no center. It could be a bubble embedded in something much larger, in which case it might well have a center. The safest assumption is that there isn't one, and if there is, it’s probably outside the part we can see.

But still, the concept of metric space expansion means that even if there’s a center, you have to be careful not to be misled by false analogies. In an explosion, the pieces start in a small package, and expand out from that. In that case the pieces are moving within a framework that’s fixed. In this case, it’s the framework itself that’s expanding. So if you’re thinking that in the early universe there was this pea-sized object surrounded by empty space, and the pea got bigger and took up the space, that’s wrong. There was no surrounding space, because it was space itself that was smaller.

But for the observable universe, yes, there was a center.

It is *very* unlikely that the basic idea of metric expansion is wrong. There’s too many different kinds of evidence.

As to the size being larger than it ought to be. If the universe weren’t expanding, then you’d be right. In 14 billion years, we could only see light from a sphere that’s 14 billon years in radius around us. But it is expanding. The oldest light we can see now started when the universe was smaller, so we were a lot closer to other things. Figuring out just how far away furtherest thing we can see are now isn’t so simple. I’m trusting that astronomers have done the computations properly.

FYI Neogaia777, this is really excellent explanation of the "center" question from the perspective of LCDM. I may not agree with their assessment, but understanding the LCDM model properly is necessary if you intend to compare various models.

I'd say that it's *highly likely* that the basic idea of metric expansion is wrong. It's *not* a "requirement" in GR theory. It's "optional" at best case, just like "dark energy". GR theory is not dependent upon the scientific validity of LCMD, but the reverse is not true. LCDM *requires* GR theory to be correct, but LCDM also requires "optional" elements that are not "required" in GR theory. Metric expansion is just one example. Exotic matter is another example of an element of LCMD that is "optional" in GR.

Inelastic scattering in plasma is a well documented cause of photon redshift in the lab. You don't need metric expansion to explain photon redshift.

 

[Michael]

FYI, even if you assume that all redshift is caused by expansion, the need for 'dark energy' is really quite debatable.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170330115254.htm

Considering the tenuous and hypothetical nature of exotic forms of matter and energy, I simply don't see enough evidence to support such ideas to begin with.

 

[Radrook]

If you could go fast enough, and circumvent the problem of attaining infinite mass/energy; I suppose it would work in theory.

It worked in theory except for the part where my eyeballs exploded and all my teef fell out!

LOL!

 

[hedrick]

Considering the tenuous and hypothetical nature of exotic forms of matter and energy, I simply don't see enough evidence to support such ideas to begin with.

It's not so clear that dark energy is an exotic form of anything. I make no claim that I know what it is or even that it exists, but a cosmological constant could be the result of quantum field theory or gravitation.

A lot of fantasy-type scifi has turned dark energy into something almost supernatural, but I assume it will fall out of improvements in understanding gravity and quantum mechanics.

 

[Grandpa2390]

I wonder if someone would humor me and answer some questions I have about the universe...?

How much space is there between galaxies? Are they far apart like star systems are in galaxies, or not so much?

I think you would like this:
If the Moon Were Only 1 Pixel - A tediously accurate map of the solar system
it illustrates how much space there is between the planets. For best results, scroll with the arrow keys

and

is a comparison of our star to one of the largest stars discovered. it is spectacular!

 

[Ophiolite]

However, I will add that, contrary to what Michael seems to think, the astronomy and physics departments of universities around the world are not staffed by complete idiots, who have no idea what they are talking about.

Quite true. All those guys are in the Department of Economics.