Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

Ask away.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

What are your credentials?

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

Can or will a similar event ever take place?

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can or will a similar event ever take place?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can it take place? Yes, if it happened once, it could, in theory happen again under the right conditions. Whether those conditions will ever present themselves is a matter of speculation.

Will it happen again?

Judging solely on the existing evidence, no. We must assume the null hypothesis unless there is evidence suggesting otherwise. There is no evidence suggesting a Big Bang will ever occur again, therefore, the null hypothesis holds.

At one point, some cosmologists thought the Universe might eventually end in a Big Crunch and possibly precipitate another round of the Universe (a new Big Bang). Evidence now suggests otherwise.

There are also some string theorists that suggest that there are multiple Universes (multiple Big Bangs) in some meta Universe. At this point, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence for this hypothesis.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

is there any correlation between human potential and the big bang.

for example, in certain Zen teachings they talk about Kensho or certain deep realizations being earth shattering... do you think that there are ties between the conception of the Universe and earth shattering, enlightening realizations/ahah moments where ... everything is illuminated???

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
is there any correlation between human potential and the big bang.

for example, in certain Zen teachings they talk about Kensho or certain deep realizations being earth shattering... do you think that there are ties between the conception of the Universe and earth shattering, enlightening realizations/ahah moments where ... everything is illuminated???

[/ QUOTE ]

As humans, we tend to place a lot of importance in our role in the Universe. In many religions, we are in the center of the Universe and are God's chosen creatures.

In reality, we are a speck in an arbitrary place in the cosmos. It is estimated that there are 10^21 stars in the Universe. If you add up all the grains of sand on all of Earth's beaches, you wouldn't be close. Furthermore, in my opinion, Man is not a special animal. We are simply a product of evolution whose brain structure allowed higher thought processes.

In short, our fate, is in no way tied to the fate of the Universe. Nevertheless, it IS truly amazing that humans can begin to understand even a little of how the Universe was created and it's laws.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are your credentials?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming to know everything and please correct me if I'm mistaken anywhere. I took some high level astronomy/cosmology courses in college and read a bit cosmology in my spare time. I'll be able to answer most questions in layman's terms.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

Here's some food for thought.

4% of the Universe is observable to us. In other words, it's made up of ordinary matter/energy.
22% of the Universe is dark matter.
74% of the Universe is dark energy.

Also, to clear up a common misconception: the Big Bang did not start from a tiny point. Well, it did, but probably not the way your thinking about it. There is no special direction in the Universe. There is no central point from which the Big Bang began and expanded outwards. The Universe started EVERYWHERE at the same time. The Big Bang was just as much here as it was billions of light years away. The whole Universe was just condensed into a very small volume (infinitesimally small) so everything was infinitely close together. So, was it a point? Yes. But it doesn't make sense to think of it from outside or on the edge of the point.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

- Did anything exist before the big bang?
- How do we know the universe is expanding? Couldn't there be some other explanation for the redshift or whatever it is we're seeing? Couldn't we be stuck in a local random swirl of some infinite universe, like turbulence in a pond?

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
But it doesn't make sense to think of it from outside or on the edge of the point.

[/ QUOTE ]
How useful is the big bang metaphor then? What does it mean?

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
- Did anything exist before the big bang?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an unfair question. Did you exist in the year 1863? What did you eat for breakfast on July 23, 1863? etc. In the same way, time did not exist before the Big Bang. There is no indication that anything existed prior to the Big Bang.

[ QUOTE ]
- How do we know the universe is expanding? Couldn't there be some other explanation for the redshift or whatever it is we're seeing? Couldn't we be stuck in a local random swirl of some infinite universe, like turbulence in a pond?

[/ QUOTE ]

When we look out into space, we see most stars receding from us. What's more, the further they are away from us, the faster they are receding. This is happening in every direction. From the current available data, it also seems that every other star/galaxy is experiencing the same phenomenon (everything is receding from it and the further away, the faster). A swirl would not exhibit these properties (a significant number of stars/galaxies would be moving in the same direction as us).

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it doesn't make sense to think of it from outside or on the edge of the point.

[/ QUOTE ]
How useful is the big bang metaphor then? What does it mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps a more useful way to visualize it would be stripping the current Universe of everything (matter, energy, dark energy, dark matter). Then imagine huge tears throughout the Universe (every single nook and cranny of it) spewing forth massive amounts of energy. It's rapidly expanding and cooling over time and eventually, it's cool enough for matter to form.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

Given that almost every scientist ever has been almost completely dead wrong, how likely do you think it is that everything you "know" is completely inaccurate?

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

Regarding the expansion, I'm confused as to why this couldn't be a local phenomenon. Isn't it possible that very different behavior is being exhibited outside of our light cone? Like, we'd never see it.

Also, I was just curious if you were some sort of astronomer that I may know of. I figure anyone with the time and drive to look things up online is as good a source as any nowadays. If you had access to a good repository of recently published papers that would be pretty sweet too.

Hell, good reasoning is enough credibility for me.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are your credentials?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming to know everything and please correct me if I'm mistaken anywhere. I took some high level astronomy/cosmology courses in college and read a bit cosmology in my spare time. I'll be able to answer most questions in layman's terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain why a specific cosmic microwave background radiation was definitive proof that the big bang theory was correct. Just curious how Georges Lemaître could have predicted that.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

What is your take on the axis of evil?

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

"big bang" or "the horrendous space kablooie"?

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
Given that almost every scientist ever has been almost completely dead wrong, how likely do you think it is that everything you "know" is completely inaccurate?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is definitely possible. We can see some of the big picture and we're interpreting it to mean one thing while it could really be something entirely different.

That being said, there is some very strong evidence. A mathematical derivation from Einstein's equation yields [current matter/energy density + vacuum energy + the shape of the Universe] = 1. What convinces me is that each component of the equation was individually observed. Mass density = 0.3, vacuum energy = 0.7, and the shape of the universe = 0 (flat).

Mass density gives us an indication of how dense the Universe is and was. If it was too dense early on, gravity would just suck everything back together right after the Big Bang. If it was too diffuse early on, stars/galaxies would not have enough critical mass to form. You can think of vacuum energy as a reverse-gravity. With gravity, the closer you get to something, the harder you are attracted to each other. With vacuum energy (reverse-gravity) the FURTHER AWAY you get from something, the more you are repelled. The geometries of the Universe that are generally considered possibilities include: spherical (1), flat (0), and hyperbolic/reverse sphere (-1).

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- Did anything exist before the big bang?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an unfair question. Did you exist in the year 1863? What did you eat for breakfast on July 23, 1863? etc. In the same way, time did not exist before the Big Bang. There is no indication that anything existed prior to the Big Bang.
[..]


[/ QUOTE ]
Please, tell us about the implications of String Theory on our view of the big bang, and what was before it.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the expansion, I'm confused as to why this couldn't be a local phenomenon. Isn't it possible that very different behavior is being exhibited outside of our light cone? Like, we'd never see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it could be a local phenomenon. Just the same way that when standing on the Earth it appears flat, we could be looking out in the Universe and thinking it's flat. The Universe is infinite. Our "horizon" is only 14 billion light years or so. Does our "horizon" extend far enough to view the true geometry of the Universe? We have no way of knowing for sure.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are your credentials?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming to know everything and please correct me if I'm mistaken anywhere. I took some high level astronomy/cosmology courses in college and read a bit cosmology in my spare time. I'll be able to answer most questions in layman's terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain why a specific cosmic microwave background radiation was definitive proof that the big bang theory was correct. Just curious how Georges Lemaître could have predicted that.

[/ QUOTE ]

When we look at Cosmic Background Radiation, we are actually seeing a snapshot of the Universe relatively soon after the Big Bang took place (~400,000 years after). It was the moment the Universe had cooled enough so that it went from being opaque to becoming transparent. It was also the moment energy and matter became two separate things. Anyway, this Cosmic Background Radiation is really far out and receding from us fast so it's grossly distorted (redshifted) into the microwave part of the light spectrum. But if we account for the redshift, we can determine the wavelength of the light that originally left the CBR and from that, we can determine the temperature (~2800 C). 400,000 years ago, every single part of the Universe was uniformly ~2800 C (there was no empty, cold space).

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- Did anything exist before the big bang?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an unfair question. Did you exist in the year 1863? What did you eat for breakfast on July 23, 1863? etc. In the same way, time did not exist before the Big Bang. There is no indication that anything existed prior to the Big Bang.
[..]


[/ QUOTE ]
Please, tell us about the implications of String Theory on our view of the big bang, and what was before it.

[/ QUOTE ]

While string theory is pretty cool to think about, there just isn't any conclusive evidence to support it. But basically, it would entail lots of Universes (Big Bangs) in some kind of meta Universe that always existed and always will exist. Our own Universe is just a speck.

Here's a pretty cool movie: http://tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

Just after the big bang were the laws of nature different than what we think of them today?

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

Can you give some commentary on Friedmann's critical density and the upper limits of density?

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

I like to think of the universe as a point in a vector room.

This vector room has an infite number of axis and each point in this room have diffrent physical laws determind on where on each axis they are. Our universe happened to be placed in that point where the laws lead to a universe where we can observe ourself.

How wrong am I?

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just after the big bang were the laws of nature different than what we think of them today?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are four known forces that are responsible for the Universe as we know it: Strong Interaction, Electromagnetism, Weak Interaction, and Gravity. On a side note, the strong interaction is what holds atoms together. With the electromagnetic force, you would think protons would repel each other since they are all positively charged. When the protons are extremely close to each other, however, the strong force kicks in and binds them. It is much, much stronger than electromagnetism.

Anyway, at high enough temperatures, these forces unify. Since the Universe at some point was infinitely hot, these forces were unified. Gravity was the first to separate, followed by the strong interaction, and finally by a decoupling of the electromagnetic force and the weak interaction.

In short, the laws of physics were completely different immediately following the Big Bang. Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force were the same thing.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just after the big bang were the laws of nature different than what we think of them today?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are four known forces that are responsible for the Universe as we know it: Strong Interaction, Electromagnetism, Weak Interaction, and Gravity. On a side note, the strong interaction is what holds atoms together. With the electromagnetic force, you would think protons would repel each other since they are all positively charged. When the protons are extremely close to each other, however, the strong force kicks in and binds them. It is much, much stronger than electromagnetism.

Anyway, at high enough temperatures, these forces unify. Since the Universe at some point was infinitely hot, these forces were unified. Gravity was the first to separate, followed by the strong interaction, and finally by a decoupling of the electromagnetic force and the weak interaction.

In short, the laws of physics were completely different immediately following the Big Bang. Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force were the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source?

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just after the big bang were the laws of nature different than what we think of them today?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are four known forces that are responsible for the Universe as we know it: Strong Interaction, Electromagnetism, Weak Interaction, and Gravity. On a side note, the strong interaction is what holds atoms together. With the electromagnetic force, you would think protons would repel each other since they are all positively charged. When the protons are extremely close to each other, however, the strong force kicks in and binds them. It is much, much stronger than electromagnetism.

Anyway, at high enough temperatures, these forces unify. Since the Universe at some point was infinitely hot, these forces were unified. Gravity was the first to separate, followed by the strong interaction, and finally by a decoupling of the electromagnetic force and the weak interaction.

In short, the laws of physics were completely different immediately following the Big Bang. Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force were the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source?

[/ QUOTE ]

The unification of electromagnetism with the weak force has been experimentally achieved on Earth (the physicists that did this got the '79 Noble prize). You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_theory

There is also strong evidence suggesting a grand unified theory where the strong force will be unified with the electroweak force. It requires much more energy (10^12 more energy in fact) than uniting the electromagnetic and weak force. If three of the forces are united at high energy, it seems likely that the last force, gravity, would be united too at some even higher energy level. The unification of gravity with the rest of the three forces is suspected, but not well supported.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just after the big bang were the laws of nature different than what we think of them today?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are four known forces that are responsible for the Universe as we know it: Strong Interaction, Electromagnetism, Weak Interaction, and Gravity. On a side note, the strong interaction is what holds atoms together. With the electromagnetic force, you would think protons would repel each other since they are all positively charged. When the protons are extremely close to each other, however, the strong force kicks in and binds them. It is much, much stronger than electromagnetism.

Anyway, at high enough temperatures, these forces unify. Since the Universe at some point was infinitely hot, these forces were unified. Gravity was the first to separate, followed by the strong interaction, and finally by a decoupling of the electromagnetic force and the weak interaction.

In short, the laws of physics were completely different immediately following the Big Bang. Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force were the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source?

[/ QUOTE ]


see Symmetry Breaking .

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are your credentials?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming to know everything and please correct me if I'm mistaken anywhere. I took some high level astronomy/cosmology courses in college and read a bit cosmology in my spare time. I'll be able to answer most questions in layman's terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain why a specific cosmic microwave background radiation was definitive proof that the big bang theory was correct. Just curious how Georges Lemaître could have predicted that.

[/ QUOTE ]

When we look at Cosmic Background Radiation, we are actually seeing a snapshot of the Universe relatively soon after the Big Bang took place (~400,000 years after). It was the moment the Universe had cooled enough so that it went from being opaque to becoming transparent. It was also the moment energy and matter became two separate things. Anyway, this Cosmic Background Radiation is really far out and receding from us fast so it's grossly distorted (redshifted) into the microwave part of the light spectrum. But if we account for the redshift, we can determine the wavelength of the light that originally left the CBR and from that, we can determine the temperature (~2800 C). 400,000 years ago, every single part of the Universe was uniformly ~2800 C (there was no empty, cold space).

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't exactly right. The formation of the cosmic microwave background radiation is due to an event called 'decoupling' that occurred during the epoch of recombination, a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. Theres a good write up of it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ave_background

Look in the first paragraph under 'features'.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are your credentials?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming to know everything and please correct me if I'm mistaken anywhere. I took some high level astronomy/cosmology courses in college and read a bit cosmology in my spare time. I'll be able to answer most questions in layman's terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain why a specific cosmic microwave background radiation was definitive proof that the big bang theory was correct. Just curious how Georges Lemaître could have predicted that.

[/ QUOTE ]

When we look at Cosmic Background Radiation, we are actually seeing a snapshot of the Universe relatively soon after the Big Bang took place (~400,000 years after). It was the moment the Universe had cooled enough so that it went from being opaque to becoming transparent. It was also the moment energy and matter became two separate things. Anyway, this Cosmic Background Radiation is really far out and receding from us fast so it's grossly distorted (redshifted) into the microwave part of the light spectrum. But if we account for the redshift, we can determine the wavelength of the light that originally left the CBR and from that, we can determine the temperature (~2800 C). 400,000 years ago, every single part of the Universe was uniformly ~2800 C (there was no empty, cold space).

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't exactly right. The formation of the cosmic microwave background radiation is due to an event called 'decoupling' that occurred during the epoch of recombination, a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. Theres a good write up of it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ave_background

Look in the first paragraph under 'features'.

[/ QUOTE ]

every single part of the Universe was almost uniformly ~2800 C (there was no empty, cold space). If it was 100% uniform, there would not be any clumps of matter (stars, planets, etc). Those tiny "ripples" are what created all the structure in the Universe. These ripples are temperature fluctuations that are only thousandths of a degree.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are your credentials?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming to know everything and please correct me if I'm mistaken anywhere. I took some high level astronomy/cosmology courses in college and read a bit cosmology in my spare time. I'll be able to answer most questions in layman's terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain why a specific cosmic microwave background radiation was definitive proof that the big bang theory was correct. Just curious how Georges Lemaître could have predicted that.

[/ QUOTE ]

When we look at Cosmic Background Radiation, we are actually seeing a snapshot of the Universe relatively soon after the Big Bang took place (~400,000 years after). It was the moment the Universe had cooled enough so that it went from being opaque to becoming transparent. It was also the moment energy and matter became two separate things. Anyway, this Cosmic Background Radiation is really far out and receding from us fast so it's grossly distorted (redshifted) into the microwave part of the light spectrum. But if we account for the redshift, we can determine the wavelength of the light that originally left the CBR and from that, we can determine the temperature (~2800 C). 400,000 years ago, every single part of the Universe was uniformly ~2800 C (there was no empty, cold space).

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't exactly right. The formation of the cosmic microwave background radiation is due to an event called 'decoupling' that occurred during the epoch of recombination, a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. Theres a good write up of it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ave_background

Look in the first paragraph under 'features'.

[/ QUOTE ]

every single part of the Universe was almost uniformly ~2800 C (there was no empty, cold space). If it was 100% uniform, there would not be any clumps of matter (stars, planets, etc). Those tiny "ripples" are what created all the structure in the Universe. These ripples are temperature fluctuations that are only thousandths of a degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring more to:

1 - glossing over the exact details of HOW the cosmic microwave background formed, which is a somewhat subtle concept. I felt it deserved some clarifying.

2 - this nonsense about "the moment energy and matter became two separate things". Sorry, but thats just [censored] ;-)

I wasnt talking about the existence of anisotropies.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are your credentials?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming to know everything and please correct me if I'm mistaken anywhere. I took some high level astronomy/cosmology courses in college and read a bit cosmology in my spare time. I'll be able to answer most questions in layman's terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain why a specific cosmic microwave background radiation was definitive proof that the big bang theory was correct. Just curious how Georges Lemaître could have predicted that.

[/ QUOTE ]

When we look at Cosmic Background Radiation, we are actually seeing a snapshot of the Universe relatively soon after the Big Bang took place (~400,000 years after). It was the moment the Universe had cooled enough so that it went from being opaque to becoming transparent. It was also the moment energy and matter became two separate things. Anyway, this Cosmic Background Radiation is really far out and receding from us fast so it's grossly distorted (redshifted) into the microwave part of the light spectrum. But if we account for the redshift, we can determine the wavelength of the light that originally left the CBR and from that, we can determine the temperature (~2800 C). 400,000 years ago, every single part of the Universe was uniformly ~2800 C (there was no empty, cold space).

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't exactly right. The formation of the cosmic microwave background radiation is due to an event called 'decoupling' that occurred during the epoch of recombination, a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. Theres a good write up of it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ave_background

Look in the first paragraph under 'features'.

[/ QUOTE ]

every single part of the Universe was almost uniformly ~2800 C (there was no empty, cold space). If it was 100% uniform, there would not be any clumps of matter (stars, planets, etc). Those tiny "ripples" are what created all the structure in the Universe. These ripples are temperature fluctuations that are only thousandths of a degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

2 - this nonsense about "the moment energy and matter became two separate things". Sorry, but thats just [censored] ;-)

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you are right in that some types of matter did exist before Recombination. There were various subatomic particles floating around. However, it was not until Recombination that the first atoms of hydrogen form.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

The fact that there is a Universe is absolutely ludicrous. The idea of there being nothing at all is nearly as absurd. Thoughts?

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
is there any correlation between human potential and the big bang.

for example, in certain Zen teachings they talk about Kensho or certain deep realizations being earth shattering... do you think that there are ties between the conception of the Universe and earth shattering, enlightening realizations/ahah moments where ... everything is illuminated???

[/ QUOTE ]

As humans, we tend to place a lot of importance in our role in the Universe. In many religions, we are in the center of the Universe and are God's chosen creatures.

In reality, we are a speck in an arbitrary place in the cosmos. It is estimated that there are 10^21 stars in the Universe. If you add up all the grains of sand on all of Earth's beaches, you wouldn't be close. Furthermore, in my opinion, Man is not a special animal. We are simply a product of evolution whose brain structure allowed higher thought processes.

In short, our fate, is in no way tied to the fate of the Universe. Nevertheless, it IS truly amazing that humans can begin to understand even a little of how the Universe was created and it's laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you have to say about mysticism. how do you explain idiot savant-ery?

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
Our "horizon" is only 14 billion light years or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you pass your midterms? That's completely wrong.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our "horizon" is only 14 billion light years or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you pass your midterms? That's completely wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain your objection. I know what he's talking about and he's correct.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our "horizon" is only 14 billion light years or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you pass your midterms? That's completely wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain your objection. I know what he's talking about and he's correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he's not.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our "horizon" is only 14 billion light years or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you pass your midterms? That's completely wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain your objection. I know what he's talking about and he's correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

He isn't.

14 billion years is roughly the age of the universe. The notion that this age times c gives you the radius of the observable universe is rubbish.

As of right now, the observable universe extends about 47 billion light years in each direction, due to the metric expansion of space. This is basic cosmology.

Re: Ask Gugel Anything About the Big Bang
 

I think that's why he used "horizon" in quotes. Is this
link pertinent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_horizon


I agree there are some misconceptions as stated in the
"Misconceptions" section of the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe