3 ms·

Yes but Quark Gluon Plasma existed immediately following the Big Bang. We arrive at the Big Bang by reverse engineering lots of evidence we see in the universe.

Yes but Quark Gluon Plasma existed immediately following the Big Bang. We arrive at the Big Bang by reverse engineering lots of evidence we see in the universe. What evidence is there that nothing else currently inside the bubble of the observable universe could possibly have been there, very far away from the Big Bang, at the time of the Big Bang? I don't see why I'm being down-voted because as of yet no one has answered that question. I'm not saying the Big Bang didn't happen. I'm saying we have no observations that give us any confidence we'll never encounter something that wasn't part of the Big Bang. This star actually pre-dating the Big Bang is extremely unlikely, I agree. The simpler explanation is the uncertainty in it's age estimation. But equating "the observable universe" with "stuff that originated in the Big Bang" is an assumption we simply don't have much reasoning for, other than we haven't seen much other stuff. But then... we also don't see many stars this old.

semi-extrinsic 7y ago
All the evidence suggests that Big Bang did not happen at one identifiable point. Instead it happened everywhere simultaneously. So there is no place in our universe "very far away from the Big Bang".
- labster 7y ago
  I don’t care where you have your Big Bang, Just as long as there’s no Big Bang, nuclear power, or homeless shelter in my back yard.
- ergothus 7y ago
  Not the above poster, but I want to understand. I have half-understood thoughts that conflict with each other. Any help showing where I misunderstand is appreciated, but this is probably a failure of my brain to be able to cope. * All space was contained in the big bang, so "everywhere simultaneously" makes sense from that perspective. * ...but the idea that space is expanding implies an outer "edge" (, which doesn't make sense if space isn't infinite. (or is it infinite, and just getting "more" infinite, in the way that the space on the number line between 0 and 1 is infinite, but "less" infinite than between 0 and 2?
  - graedus 7y ago
    Layman here. To your second bullet, yes, the universe can be infinite but also be expanding. A rough analogy I've heard is that there are infinite points on the surface of a balloon, but if you blow it up more, the distance between any two given points will be greater than it was, so it has expanded. I don't think we know if the universe is infinitely large or not though.
    - Filligree 7y ago
      We don't know, but the universe appears to be perfectly flat, which would indicate it's infinite. That could also just be due to inflation, mind.
  - temp1999 7y ago
    [0,1] is not less infinite than [0,2]. Also the less does not need quotes, there is an ordering of infinities. Edit: typo
  - crooked-v 7y ago
    > ...but the idea that space is expanding implies an outer "edge" No, it doesn't. For example: consider an infinite number of marbles in an infinitely long line, all of them are touching each other. Now, get an infinite number of helpers stationed along the infinitely long line, and have them all move the marbles in front of them to the right and stagger them out in the process, so that there's now an inch between each marble. You now have an infinite number of marbles an infinitely long line, but it's a longer line than it started out, because there's now an inch between all the marbles.
    - brutt 7y ago
      You will need infinite amount of energy to insert spaces between these marbles. Can you point us to source of this energy?
      - crooked-v 7y ago
        The theory of the Big Bang (or at least the variants with an infinite universe) includes infinite energy as part of the initial singularity.
groby_b 7y ago
Mostly because space and time are most likely a result of the Big Bang. For all we can tell, "the beginning" was an infinitely dense singularity of space time - there is no "very far from the Big Bang", because, there's no space. Yes, you can somewhat debate that - we're not entirely clear what happened in the first 10^-33 seconds - but we don't know anything about that. So you might as well say "what evidence is there that the universe wasn't the spawn of two extremely short-lived green bunnies", and the answer is "none", too.
- Simon_says 7y ago
  THat's one theory. Another is Eternal Inflation.
  - groby_b 7y ago
    I thought that theory had issues with quantum gravity? But either way, inflation would happen in that 10^-33 span I mentioned above. We simply don't know. And even if we assume it holds, inflation is an extremely rapid expansion of space-time, so the idea that there were things "very far from each other" still does not really hold. And IIRC, Penrose and Hawkings disproved the idea that inflationary models can avoid an initial singularity[1]. I'd be somewhat surprised to see them disproven. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singul...
rpedela 7y ago
You are probably being downvoted because the big bang, our ability to estimate the age of the universe, etc is believed to be a fact by many including astronomers and astrophysicists. And yet there are so many unanswered questions that it is reasonable to question those things. In this case, it calls into question our age estimation for both planets and the universe.

semi-extrinsic 7y ago

All the evidence suggests that Big Bang did not happen at one identifiable point. Instead it happened everywhere simultaneously. So there is no place in our universe "very far away from the Big Bang".

labster 7y ago
I don’t care where you have your Big Bang, Just as long as there’s no Big Bang, nuclear power, or homeless shelter in my back yard.
ergothus 7y ago
Not the above poster, but I want to understand. I have half-understood thoughts that conflict with each other. Any help showing where I misunderstand is appreciated, but this is probably a failure of my brain to be able to cope. * All space was contained in the big bang, so "everywhere simultaneously" makes sense from that perspective. * ...but the idea that space is expanding implies an outer "edge" (, which doesn't make sense if space isn't infinite. (or is it infinite, and just getting "more" infinite, in the way that the space on the number line between 0 and 1 is infinite, but "less" infinite than between 0 and 2?
- graedus 7y ago
  Layman here. To your second bullet, yes, the universe can be infinite but also be expanding. A rough analogy I've heard is that there are infinite points on the surface of a balloon, but if you blow it up more, the distance between any two given points will be greater than it was, so it has expanded. I don't think we know if the universe is infinitely large or not though.
  - Filligree 7y ago
    We don't know, but the universe appears to be perfectly flat, which would indicate it's infinite. That could also just be due to inflation, mind.
- temp1999 7y ago
  [0,1] is not less infinite than [0,2]. Also the less does not need quotes, there is an ordering of infinities. Edit: typo
- crooked-v 7y ago
  > ...but the idea that space is expanding implies an outer "edge" No, it doesn't. For example: consider an infinite number of marbles in an infinitely long line, all of them are touching each other. Now, get an infinite number of helpers stationed along the infinitely long line, and have them all move the marbles in front of them to the right and stagger them out in the process, so that there's now an inch between each marble. You now have an infinite number of marbles an infinitely long line, but it's a longer line than it started out, because there's now an inch between all the marbles.
  - brutt 7y ago
    You will need infinite amount of energy to insert spaces between these marbles. Can you point us to source of this energy?
    - crooked-v 7y ago
      The theory of the Big Bang (or at least the variants with an infinite universe) includes infinite energy as part of the initial singularity.

groby_b 7y ago

Mostly because space and time are most likely a result of the Big Bang. For all we can tell, "the beginning" was an infinitely dense singularity of space time - there is no "very far from the Big Bang", because, there's no space. Yes, you can somewhat debate that - we're not entirely clear what happened in the first 10^-33 seconds - but we don't know anything about that. So you might as well say "what evidence is there that the universe wasn't the spawn of two extremely short-lived green bunnies", and the answer is "none", too.

Simon_says 7y ago
THat's one theory. Another is Eternal Inflation.
- groby_b 7y ago
  I thought that theory had issues with quantum gravity? But either way, inflation would happen in that 10^-33 span I mentioned above. We simply don't know. And even if we assume it holds, inflation is an extremely rapid expansion of space-time, so the idea that there were things "very far from each other" still does not really hold. And IIRC, Penrose and Hawkings disproved the idea that inflationary models can avoid an initial singularity[1]. I'd be somewhat surprised to see them disproven. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singul...

rpedela 7y ago

You are probably being downvoted because the big bang, our ability to estimate the age of the universe, etc is believed to be a fact by many including astronomers and astrophysicists. And yet there are so many unanswered questions that it is reasonable to question those things. In this case, it calls into question our age estimation for both planets and the universe.