[removed]
Comments
Slackimus t1_j25huai wrote
Not sure. But they do say that the universerse is expanding faster than the speed of light. That means that the oldest light will never reach us.
The-Temple-Of-Iron t1_j25hubf wrote
The inflationary universe theory predicts that the universe came into being and inflated in a manner that you can't look in a specific location to see where it happened. It happened everywhere. Existence as you know it began at that moment and it happened throughout the universe. So as far back as you can see is the radiation from about 400,000 years after the initial inflation occurred, called the cosmic microwave background. So far it seems unlikely that we can see earlier than that. Seeing before the big bang is a paradoxical question. As far as we know, time began at the big bang. There was no before.
Edit: Brotherbrutha's comment below corrected the timing for me.
[deleted] OP t1_j25i6wl wrote
[removed]
cstrand31 t1_j25i7ka wrote
No. The Big Bang is the beginning of this universe. The Big Crunch would’ve been the ending of any theoretical previous universe.
im_wudini t1_j25ij5g wrote
The detector that discovered the cosmic microwave background is walking distance from my house in NJ. So cool!
​
​
edit: so you don't have to google it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmdel_Horn_Antenna
2nd edit: It's actually in danger of being potentially destroyed for some luxury housing.. Sign the petition to save it!
The-Temple-Of-Iron t1_j25ilxh wrote
Oh dang. That's wicked awesome
Max_the_magician t1_j25iqyi wrote
Cosmic microwave background radiation is the earliest light we can detect. There is nothing to detect before that as far as I know.
BrotherBrutha t1_j25jele wrote
Just to be needlessly pedantic (because I’m bored!), from what I understand photons couldn’t start travelling through the universe until about 400,000 years or so after the Big Bang (maybe a bit less, depends what you read!), since it was opaque until then.
So, the CMB from that time is as far back as we can get with a telescope.
The-Temple-Of-Iron t1_j25jokq wrote
My bad. I stand corrected. I got the "earliest we know for sure" and "earliest we can see mixed up. Thank you!
KrangQQ t1_j25jvqe wrote
As far as we know (today), before the recombination the universe was an opaque hot, dense plasma of photons, leptons and quarks. It was first after the recombination photons could "travel" without more or less instantly interacting with something.
That said, the opaque plasma would probably act as a "shield" and prevent us from look into a previous universe (if there was a universe before the one we experience).
terabranford t1_j25jzts wrote
That's very interesting. I never really thought about it, but it makes perfect sense. But now I have a question. And I apologize if it doesn't make sense.
Eventually, would this fact lead to us only seeing our Own light? Like from however old it is, it's the light we can see because we're Travelling with it. Like, ripples on the water.
Marijn_fly t1_j25kfac wrote
Primordial gravitational waves may be detected one day.
[deleted] OP t1_j25lhms wrote
[removed]
Ill_Sky4073 t1_j25ls4c wrote
I was just thinking about this. Are primordial gravity waves detectable in principle? If so, how much more precise do our detectors need to be to "see" them?
Chadmartigan t1_j25lt49 wrote
That depends on which theory you subscribe to. For example, conformal cyclical cosmology does not require a Big Crunch (but does require mass decay, which is not a trivial assumption).
DolphinWings25 t1_j25m7zw wrote
I wouldn't say it was the end of a previous universe but maybe a continuation of events within some sort of multiverse of universes as many as bubbles bubbling along all the waters of our world.
[deleted] OP t1_j25mjg3 wrote
As others have said, it's not possible due to microwave background, but more logically, if one universe "ends," that's it. It has all ended. Everything has been crunched up. So there's nothing to see because even if the laws of physics were the same in the previous universe, photons exist in space-time, not out of it. So if all of space-time is crunched up, there can be no more photons and thus nothing to see.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j25n2xm wrote
> The inflationary universe theory predicts that the universe came into being and inflated in a manner that you can't look in a specific location to see where it happened.
Wait, seriously? I thought the whole deal with the Big Bang was that we were extrapolating backward to the point that everything is expanding away from. So we can pinpoint where it started. No?
Texan4eva t1_j25p4qn wrote
Yes, eventually the Milky way will be the only observable galaxy. If life still exists, those beings will never be able to discover what we know now, unless our knowledge is somehow preserved. Pretty trippy
terabranford t1_j25ppei wrote
You think that's a trip(and it is. A sad lonely one.) just imagine one far, far off day it's suddenly reported that other galaxies have just been spotted.
>[CRUNCH]<
Marijn_fly t1_j25qd40 wrote
It seems so. But to detect them, you need a really big detector. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Observer
Skarr87 t1_j25qtsv wrote
We observed that everything is moving away from everything else (large scale) so the theory is everything was one in the same place. The discovery of the CMB and the fact that everything is “younger” the farther we look out supports this. Since the expansion would have been everywhere there would have been no center of it, or rather every point is the center of it.
A poor analogy would be if you take a picture on you phone and blow it up where did the center of the expansion begin? It wasn’t in the center or a corner, it happened everywhere at once. So imagine that but start with a point.
Inevitable-Ear-3189 t1_j25r0af wrote
Mayyyyybe - check out Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (one of the coolest ideas in physics imho, right or wrong):
bobert7000 t1_j25rht0 wrote
No, this would mean The Big Bang is an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe but instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distances between comoving points. In other words, the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space. This would mean the Big Bang did not happen at a particular location but at every location in the universe.
charliespider t1_j25sisz wrote
Nope.
Here's a thought experiment that might help explain the issue:
Imagine if you can, an infinite universe that is ALSO infinitely dense. So all of the energy in this universe is crushed down into an infinitely dense point, but this point is also infinite in length in every direction.
Now imagine that ALL of that energy suddenly expands outwards in all directions across all of infinity, becoming significantly less dense in an instant. As the energy decreases in density and temperature it begins to condense into matter. But again, this happens everywhere at the same time across this entire infinite universe. We just happen to be somewhere within all of that.
We don't know if that's what has actually happened but it's one possibility and hopefully gives you an idea of how we can't identify a center or starting point for the big bang. As far as we can tell, the big bang happened everywhere.
RobotNoisesBeepBoop t1_j25t6t7 wrote
We might be able to use sensitive enough neutrino detectors or gravitational wave detectors to see further back than the CMB though I believe. Just not “light” detecting telescopes. I mean. We are nowhere near that right now and may never be. But it’s theoretically possible.
charliespider t1_j25ta0l wrote
Some also suspect there are neutrinos still ripping about from the big bang, but we won't be able to intelligently detect and interpret those any time soon.
The-Temple-Of-Iron t1_j25tm1v wrote
Not exactly. So the universe is expanding. Think of it as we aren't moving but everything is getting further away. That's an oversimplification, but the big bang was our universe kind of coming into being. We didn't move from a center. We are in a point that is really big now.
ExtonGuy t1_j25uukk wrote
Yes, and no. The “point” that everything is expanding away from, wasn’t a mathematical point. It was the whole universe, and is now everywhere. The center of the universe is now right here — no matter where you point a telescope, you’re pointing away from the center.
Head_Weakness8028 t1_j25vhea wrote
The entirety of the concept/thought experiment is absolutely flabbergasting. I’ve read tons of material available on this subject and it just keeps getting more incredible. The three dimensional portion of our universe expanded faster than light travels through it, so we can never see past a certain point. I’ve come to picture matter in our universe as three dimensional energy protrusions from what I call “The multidimensional pure energy substrate”. There isn’t truly anything “physical/solid” in our universe. Imagine protons, neutrons, and the electron clouds as energy fields protruding from an “infinitely” small point we can also call an event horizon. I picture every atom and force in our universe as a bubble/foam on the surface of boiling water (The multidimensional pure energy substrate). To me, black holes, are an example of how energy protrusions into this 3 dimensional “blister” naturally try reabsorb into the multidimensional substrate.
Kooky_Performance116 t1_j25vnf3 wrote
It’s the no before that fucks with me. How was there anything before the big bang if there was nothing. And if there was something it’s the chicken before the egg question.
Something tells me this whole thing is more science fiction then not lol
space-ModTeam t1_j25vohq wrote
Hello u/rowsdowerismydad, your submission "If the Big Bang was the end of a previous universe, then could a strong enough telescope see into the previous universe?" has been removed from r/space because:
- Such questions should be asked in the "All space questions" thread stickied at the top of the sub.
Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.
The-Temple-Of-Iron t1_j25vskz wrote
For sure. It just amazes me even time I think about it. To think that one day we won't see ANY galaxies but our own due to the expansion rate. Crazy.
The-Temple-Of-Iron t1_j25w7er wrote
Haha well to be fair we know just about beyond a doubt what happened from the first fraction of a second "after" the "big bang". But before that is just guessing. Some hypothesis suggest that a black hole is the beginning of a universe. A universe and a black hole are seemingly mathematically and physically the same thing in many ways. There is a great space time video on this I think.
Willbilly1221 t1_j25w935 wrote
Unless our universe’s explosion into this dimension came from the implosion of matter into a massive black hole. Meaning every black hole we observe could be another universe inside. Even if this wild and outlandish idea were true, you would still be unable to pierce the event horizon of the black hole that made our universe. Let that disturbing thought sit on your noodle as it did mine. Sleep tight.
The-Temple-Of-Iron t1_j25wfb0 wrote
Sounds interesting. That would be very cool.
[deleted] OP t1_j27zrq7 wrote
antiiltal t1_j289xnc wrote
The hypothesis that a black hole was the big bang is not really supported. And of course it is insufficiant in itself, because the black hole had to come from somewhere.
antiiltal t1_j28aizn wrote
So is there a real alternative to Penrose explanation? I guess the current scientific empirical truth is just that everything started from the big bang and nothing was before that, because before that nothing cannot be confirmed empirically or mathematically. So they just leave it be.
antiiltal t1_j28asd7 wrote
Remember that it wont be just milky way then, but milky way - andromeda galaxy.
antiiltal t1_j28c97h wrote
What do you mean by the event horizon in the case of protons, electrons and neutrons?
[deleted] OP t1_j25hejj wrote
[removed]