Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 903 of 1482 (834467)
06-06-2018 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 898 by ICANT
06-06-2018 3:07 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
As long as we can determine the rate of expansion and the duration of that period of expansion we should be able to give the diameter of the universe including what we cannot see.
To do that, we'd also need to know its size at a given prior point of time. Which we don't. So we can't.
What each other?
The universe had expanded from the pin point entity to a universe that had a diameter of over 19 light years.
The universe we observe today had grown to that size.
The speed of light is 300,000 km/s. There has only been one second for light to travel. Therefore light from any object could only have travelled 300,000km. Therefore we can't see an object 600,000km away since the light from that object has not yet reached us. Ignoring the fact that the universe is opaque at this time, of course.
But there was no light until 380,000 years after expansion began.
I'm pretty sure I said that the universe was opaque - meaning photons couldn't freely travel. Meaning that technically the observable universe was 0m in diameter at that time. But what we call the observable universe today - that which we can observe had a particular diameter.
There would be space between every electron.
If that space expanded at 186,000 miles per second that would put 186,000 miles between each electron.
I've already proven this false since there aren't enough miles in the universe to space out all the particles this way. All that remains is for you to concede this.
This is what is thought to have happened and you seem to have assumed it is fact.
That is what you are objecting to, I'm telling you what it is that you are objecting to and how your objections fail.
Your objections rely on assuming the model is true in order prove a contradiction that renders it impossible. Unfortunately, you are misunderstanding the model and the problem you raise does not impact it. I've explained why. The universe started off so dense that by the time particles start coalescing, the energy density was still great enough that the particles coalesce in a dense form...not hundreds of thousands miles between them. Granted - any particles that formed pre-inflation or during inflation are scattered huge distances if they survived that long - but the density of the quark-gluon plasma after inflation is still dense enough that your core objection fails.
Cosmologists believe, and believe = faith.
Better to trust empirical science than the word of some anonymous author, I feel.
Then why is it applied to the earliest moments of the universe's existence?
Since the first 380,000 years are not part of the visible universe I guess inflation has nothing to do with that period.
It refers to the observable universe as it is today, not then.
What was the medium that the heat was transferred to in order for the universe to cool.
Then what produced the heat to reheat the universe?
It literally tells you in the bit you didn't quote. The heat is just a function of energy density. The reheating came about when new particles coalesced:
quote:
When inflation ends the temperature returns to the pre-inflationary temperature; this is called reheating or thermalization because the large potential energy of the inflaton field decays into particles and fills the Universe with Standard Model particles, including electromagnetic radiation
What was the mechanism that slowed down the expansion of the universe?
A phase transition of the thing that causes the expansion.
380,000 years is the earliest point in time we can ever look back and "see"
It is hard for you to tell me what happened when nobody actually knows what happened, because we can see it nor can we recreate it.
You talk as if science doesn't use observations of experiments to determine what happens in places we can't see.
My God did it is just as plausible as the present assumptions.
"God did it" is meaningless, explains nothing and predicts nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 898 by ICANT, posted 06-06-2018 3:07 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 911 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2018 12:32 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 912 of 1482 (834834)
06-13-2018 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 911 by ICANT
06-13-2018 12:32 AM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
so it stands to reason there might be galaxies that are not visible to us today.
As long as we can determine the rate of expansion and the duration of that period of expansion we should be able to give the diameter of the universe including what we cannot see.
we'd also need to know its size at a given prior point of time.
There was no prior point in time
We're talking about the size of the universe today. And there definitely was a prior point in time for today. Yesterday is an example.
What we observe when we look out there today was a maximum of 19 light years away from each other after 1 second.
The universe had expanded from the pin point entity to a universe that had a diameter of over 19 light years.
The universe we observe today had grown to that size.
Which would have happened in 1 second.
Which is what I said. Did you forget what your point was or something?
I'm pretty sure I said that the universe was opaque - meaning photons couldn't freely travel. Meaning that technically the observable universe was 0m in diameter at that time. But what we call the observable universe today - that which we can observe had a particular diameter.
Are you saying that for 380,000 years the universe was not expanding?
No.
If it was unobservable where did all that information come from?
Understanding how the fundamental particles and forces work. That is to say: physics. I have answered this several times now.
Actually all you can prove is that the expansion theory is wrong.
I'll take that as a concession that your objection regarding particles being too far apart to form atoms is faulty. You certainly can't address the proof I gave that shows its flaws and have to rely on this kind of response so that's how it seems to me.
How do you know the universe started off so dense that by the time particles start coalescing, the energy density was still great enough that the particles coalesce in a dense form?
I already showed you. You estimate what the density of the observable universe is, then you calculate how dense it would be if you reduced the amount of volume to the size it was when this was happening and the answer is staring you in the face.
Electrons existed pre-inflation and was called radiation by cosmologist. Some say quarks, and gluons existed but the temperature is the trillions of degrees K so there would have been a plasma.
I'm sure you have a point, but you forgot to make it.
You say inflation lasted 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds. Where does that number come from?
Physics. You've not demonstrated any ability to understand advanced physics so it seems like a fool's errand to put it in front of you. So I'll give you the layman's summary. You calculate what the consequences would be if it were true that the inflation occurred at that time for that long - then you compare those consequences with what we observe. If they match up, your confidence that it's true rises. The degree to which your confidence rises depends on the accuracy and specificity of the numbers involved.
How did it go from zero mps to 186,000 mps in that short of a time span and then how did it slow to the Hubble rate of expansion?
What was the cause of that acceleration?
In simple terms: a scalar field through all of space with a high potential energy which drops as the universe expands - this results in a phase change resulting in a slowing of the expansion rate.
This doesn't really help you, but there's no real way of explaining this fully without you understanding the equation above.
What is the empirical scientific evidence concerning anything from the BB to 380,000 years?
Our experiments involving high energy particles give us information about how they behave, how they work, their composition etc. We apply that knowledge to the conditions of the early universe (temperature, density etc). That is to say, for the umpteenth time, physics. There's a huge amount of this evidence, it is not possible for me to just dump it in this thread even if I had it all and it certainly wouldn't illuminate you if I did.
It refers to the observable universe as it is today, not then.
So inflation did not take place at Planck time 10-43 seconds, is that what you are saying?
The conclusion about inflation is unrelated to what I was talking about in the section you quoted. So, no, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that inflationary theory only applies to the observable universe that we see today.
You are right though, I have said several times that inflation did not take place at 10-43 seconds. It took place between 10−36 and 10-32 seconds as you quoted me saying in the very post you asked this question!
If you can't see what is there, how big it is, or what it is made of how can you design an experiment to test what happened?
I put something that was at least -10C in a glass and locked in a safe that only I have the key for. 24 hours later I open the safe and it has water in it. The current temperature of the safe is 25C. Without being able to see this happen but knowing some information about the early conditions and the final outcome you can guess that the glass contained some ice. You can make an experiment where you put ice in a glass with those conditions and find the outcome is the same. You can conclude with reasonable certainty that when I did it, it was also ice that was in the glass even though you didn't see it.
That's science. You can work out what happened in an accident, a murder or whatever other phenomena you are interested in by building experiments based on educated guesswork and seeing the consequences and figuring out what the experiment results tell you about the phenomena in question. The degree of certainty can vary depending on a number of factors.
The Fantasy you believe in is meaningless, explains nothing and predicts nothing.
Nothing except the history of the last 13.7 billion years, the structure of the universe, the formation of galaxies, the nature of orbiting bodies, satnav, how fundamental particles travel .... well actually it explains almost everything we see. Which, granted, might be nothing relative to how much we haven't explained - but it's still a heck of a lot more than 'god did it'.
How can the rate increase?
In Message 884 You presented a couple of pictures.
Dave the Alien is on one edge of your picture I am in the middle and Fred the Alien on the other edge of the picture. If the space between Dave and I expands and the space between Fred and I expands the distance between Fred and Dave is twice what it is between Dave and I or Fred and I.
You measure the rate of expansion between you and Dave and you and Fred. Let's say, for simplicity that it's 100km/s for both of them.
If Dave and Fred were able to measure the rate of expansion between them they'd find it was 200km/s. They are further away from each other so there is more space expanding between them so it all adds up.
If Dave and Fred are really far away then the rate of expansion between them may be faster than the speed of light - so Fred and Dave wouldn't be able to see each other - but you could still see both of them and they can both see you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 911 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2018 12:32 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 916 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2018 9:50 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 920 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 1:00 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 919 of 1482 (834893)
06-14-2018 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 916 by ICANT
06-14-2018 9:50 AM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
I thought we were talking about some fraction of a second up to a second after T=0. Not yesterday.
We were talking about how the observable universe is presently 92 billion light years in diameter - but that we don't know the size of the entire universe.
I was just reminding you it had reached that 19.7 light years in diameter in 1 second. I gave the volume of a sphere that had a diameter of 19.7 light years.
If the space expanding was the result of a universe 19.7 light years in diameter in 1 second, that was pretty fast.
It wasn't forgotten and we both agree inflation proposes a rapid expansion of the universe.
Where is that non visible universe located at today?
It's everything we can see all the way up to where we can't see anymore - the CMBR. And there's probably more that we can't see because it is expanding away from us at a rate greater than the speed of light so the light can never reach us.
Wouldn't it have to be located at the center of the visible universe?
Only if you are right. But it isn't, it's all around us. The first pieces of light after that is the CMBR which surrounds us in a sphere that denotes the observable universe. Again, I have given this answer previously
quote:
Problem is - is that there is no pin point. It expanded. Where I am sat right now is as much a part of that pin point as where you are sat, as Mars is as Alpha Centauri is etc. You can point to the left, point to the right, point up and point down and you will be pointing at what you call the pin point.
That's why in whatever direction you look at - you see the CMBR. It is the earliest moments of the big bang and it isn't 'in the middle', or it would only exist in one direction - it's around us. Because there is no centre.
Message 698
Space can only exist between things. If that space expands all those things are further apart. What part of that do you not understand?
Sure - but the things that created the atoms coalesced very very close together because the universe was much much denser than it is today. I said it before - there are multiple atoms per square metre on average today. Rewind the clock and that number goes up so there are many billions of atoms per square metre. The expansion rate over a distance of one metre is negligible and fundamental particles can travel at significant fractions of the speed of light so the expansion is irrelevant to them.
What part of that do you not understand?
If you want me to understand that you will have to explain the mechanism that could cause everything in the current universe including all the 24% of dark matter, the 71.4% of Dark energy plus all the 4.6% of atoms (normal matter), to reduce its current size to the size of a pin point.
There is no such known mechanism.
I'm not proposing that has ever happened. I'm proposing the observable universe expanded to its current size of 92 billion light years.
But you only have 0.00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 of a second for speed up, expansion, and slow down.
I don't see the why that's a problem.
But you have no facts from the early universe.
All you have are assumptions.
We know it was denser and thus hotter.
Who measured the temperature of the universe when it began to expand?
Lots of people have calculated the temperature.
Those were produce in what Sir Roger Penrose says is a fantasy.
No he didn't.
You can examine the evidence accumulated from the scene of the accident or murder.
You can't examine anything as you have nothing from the scene of the beginning of the universe.
We have the universe, that's the evidence that the big bang left behind. There's quite a lot of it when you think about it.
But you don't have a history of the first 380,000 years.
Yes, we do. I gave it to you, you've quoted it so you certainly read it.
How do you know? You have never given a thought as to how God might have done it.
How do you know what thought I have given it? You don't.
However, I have asked you numerous times in this thread - and you promised we'd get to that part. I've been answering your questions waiting patiently for you to get to that part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 916 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2018 9:50 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024