What would the cosmic background radiation look like...

[Navy2k]

if we take away the fact that the universe is expanding (universe isn't expanding but gathering huge amounts of mass in some regions forming many "big bang events" when the mass goes critical) and replace its source by infinite "Big Bang Events" evenly spaced at an near infinite distance?

In short could all the backflips scientists make to explain the even distribution of the background radiation be for nothing because the radiation of our own big bang is log gone and what we see are countless other big bangs?

Greetings

Ben

[Newt]

I think you are missing the definition of 'Big Bang'. The Big Bang was no mere explosion--it was the development of the Universe from a single point with no volume, to a massive, growing 3D structure, the nature of which we can talk about in more detail, but that is the essence. Having multiple other Big Bangs in the same space that we occupy, would be very strange indeed.

[Ralathon]

You're forgetting that light moves at a finite speed and the universe has a limited age.

We couldn't see infinite big bangs in every direction because that means either the speed of light is infinite (And we can test it isn't) or the universe is infinitely old (And we know it isn't because of the ratios of nuclei and entropy)

Also, the fact that the universe is expanding is crucial for the cosmic background radiation. The CBR is in microwaves because of doppler shifting. If the universe wasn't expanding the entire sky would be blazing with blueish light from the big bang.

[K^2]

and entropy

The fine-grained entropy is actually a conserved quantity. And the coarse-grained entropy can locally satisfy the second law in a static universe. That does, however, contradict the expansion. Given the expansion, yeah you are absolutely correct. But it is intriguing how little would have to be different for our universe to be a static one.

[Navy2k]

The Big Bang was no mere explosion--it was the development of the Universe from a single point with no volume

The point of my question is a universe where our Big Bang was in an preexisting Universe, so in this theoretical universe this wasn't the case. This thread should be about how would the background radiation loke like like in a hpotetical universe like this. Its just a thing i like to think about and wanted now to get new angles.

And we know it isn't because of the ratios of nuclei and entropy

Isn't is possible that entropy and nucleidic ratios are like they are in our "Big Bang Bubble" inside the bigger complete universe where this values could be different?

If the universe wasn't expanding the entire sky would be blazing with blueish light from the big bang.

2 part reply:

1. Our local "Big Bang Bubble" could still expand in such an Universe.

2. Why would something moving with lightspeed still be anywhere near us after 13.8 billion years? Thats why my mind construct needs all the other big bangs. The calculated 600km/s drift of earth relative to the background radiation could be explained by the earth being expelled out of the center of our big bang at 600km/s relative to the static background radiation.

Greetings

Ben

- - - Updated - - -

On a nother note, couldn't countless other local "Big Bang Bubbles" in the right distance explain why our expansion is increasing at the rate it does?

[Sirrobert]

That's not what the big bang is. AT ALL

This video explains it:

[Navy2k]

That's not what the big bang is. AT ALL

This thread should be about how would the background radiation loke like like in a hpotetical universe like this.

Thats why i said its a brainteaser of mine, nothing more as brainstorming the impossible, or maybee possible?

This video explains it:

Isn't the ending with the pulsating universe something that could happen within al larger frame of reference and would be more natural than space zooming in on itself because its infinite?

Greetings

Ben

Edited January 29, 2015 by Navy2k