1

If we can experience or see the beginning of the universe - i.e. see the Big Bang through devices - then can we perceive or see the most forward edges of the big bang racing outward?

BioPhysicist
  • 56,248
R. M.
  • 11
  • 1
  • 1
    The universe doesn’t have an edge. The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space. – G. Smith Feb 28 '20 at 19:30
  • What Dr Smith said. Please see https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/136860/ – PM 2Ring Feb 28 '20 at 20:45
  • I have voted to close because in mainstream physics cosmological models of interest do not have edges. – G. Smith Feb 28 '20 at 20:51
  • @G.Smith I feel like you are being a bit harsh. The main point of this question doesn't really rely on whether or not cosmological models have edges. Sure, the language is imprecise, but it doesn't make the question not understandable. Imprecise language can always be discussed in answers. – BioPhysicist Feb 28 '20 at 21:37
  • @AaronStevens I consider this question to be primarily about edges. Look at the title! – G. Smith Feb 28 '20 at 21:46
  • @G.Smith Yeah the title isn't great haha. But I think it is still obvious what the OP is getting at. Instead of closing the question it might be beneficial to make an answer about how imprecise the wording is though. That is just my opinion though. I am fine with the question being closed if 4 other users agree. – BioPhysicist Feb 28 '20 at 21:48
  • 1
    @AaronStevens I think that your answer leaves the misimpression that, if not for the CMB, we could see the “most forward edges”. – G. Smith Feb 28 '20 at 21:53
  • @AaronStevens In my opinion, the language is imprecise because the OP has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Big Bang, thinking that it was an explosion of matter into space, which obviously would have an outer edge. – G. Smith Feb 28 '20 at 21:57
  • @AaronStevens You can’t correct that misunderstanding by talking about the CMB. That’s like correcting a misunderstanding of prime numbers by talking about the Riemann zeta function. :) – G. Smith Feb 28 '20 at 21:58
  • @AaronStevens In any case, in 2 hours I have been the only close vote, so I doubt that the question will get closed. – G. Smith Feb 28 '20 at 22:01
  • @G.Smith That is fine. I just thought we used answers to correct misunderstandings and imprecise language rather than just closing the question. It seems like you have an answer you could type up :) – BioPhysicist Feb 28 '20 at 22:02
  • @AaronStevens After only 18 months here, I’ve gotten tired of explaining in detail that the universe doesn’t have an edge. Anyone who thinks it does has not done even the minimal level of due diligence in researching a question before asking it. I think a brief comment and a close-as-non-mainstream is appropriate, but I admit that so far I am the only person to vote to close so apparently my point of view is not widely shared. – G. Smith Feb 28 '20 at 22:07
  • 1
    @AaronStevens I think it is more important to this site’s future to keep the question quality level high than to keep the question quantity level high. I try to do that in a way that is neither rude to the OP nor wasteful of experts’ time. As you know, this has been a lively topic on meta. – G. Smith Feb 28 '20 at 22:11
  • IMHO, many of us are here both to teach and to learn. Those who teach poorly should be corrected by the community; those who ask to be taught should be taught well, and thise who haven't at least tried to do their homework should be kindly told to try and then describe what confuses them if they don't succeed. Explaining how to search for an answer can't hurt. – S. McGrew Feb 28 '20 at 22:51
  • @S.McGrew “Those who teach poorly should be corrected by the community” - LOL! It’s like expecting the people in a church to tell the priest that there is no God :) – safesphere Mar 01 '20 at 04:49
  • Hmm... That certainly throws a different light on it! Still, when a respected member of the community (defined, I suppose, by reputation points) offers a correction, I think a lot of people pay attention. And, I think people mostly gain reputation points on PSE by teaching well. – S. McGrew Mar 01 '20 at 13:49

1 Answers1

1

According to the chronology of the universe,

At about 370,000 years, the universe finally becomes cool enough for neutral atoms to form ("recombination"), and as a result it also became transparent for the first time. The newly formed atoms—mainly hydrogen and helium with traces of lithium—quickly reach their lowest energy state (ground state) by releasing photons ("photon decoupling"), and these photons can still be detected today as the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This is currently the oldest observation we have of the universe.

Before this point, the universe was opaque, and light could not travel very far. Therefore, nothing can be seen before the time the universe became transparent, and you cannot see the "forward edges of the big bang" (whatever that might mean). Light from the CMB is as far back as you can go.

BioPhysicist
  • 56,248
  • I don't think the question is limited to light. Neutrinos and gravitational waves might help "see" further ? – Rodolphe Feb 28 '20 at 22:10
  • @Rodolphe True. If the OP wants to clarify that they aren't talking about only light, then I might consider editing. Or if you already have something in mind you can make an answer, I won't mind :) – BioPhysicist Feb 28 '20 at 22:12
  • I read about how universe cooling, as related by the Bigbang theory, predicts that the universe became transparent first to gravitational waves, then later to neutrinos, then at last to light waves. I don't know much more really. – Rodolphe Feb 28 '20 at 22:51