|
Top Document: [sci.astro] Cosmology (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (9/9) Previous Document: I.12. How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang? Next Document: I.14. Can the CMB be redshifted starlight? See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge
Once again, this question assumes that the Big Bang was an explosion
from a central point. The Big Bang was not an explosion from a single
point, with a center and an edge. The Big Bang occurred everywhere.
Hence, no matter in what direction we look, we will eventually see to
the point where the CMB photons were being formed. (The CMB photons
didn't actually form in the Big Bang, they formed later when the
Universe had cooled enough for atoms to form.)
User Contributions:Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:Top Document: [sci.astro] Cosmology (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (9/9) Previous Document: I.12. How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang? Next Document: I.14. Can the CMB be redshifted starlight? Part0 - Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part5 - Part6 - Part7 - Part8 - Single Page [ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ] Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: jlazio@patriot.net
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM
|
[sci.astro] Cosmology (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (9/9)
Section - I.13. Why haven't the CMB photons outrun the galaxies in the Big Bang?
Search the FAQ Archives
N - O - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - X - Y - Z
[sci.astro] Cosmology (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (9/9)
Section - I.13. Why haven't the CMB photons outrun the galaxies in the Big Bang?
( Part0 - Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part5 - Part6 - Part7 - Part8 - Single Page
)
[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index | Neighborhoods ]
with stars, then every direction you looked would eventually end on
the surface of a star, and the whole sky would be as bright as the
surface of the Sun.
Why would anyone assume this? Certainly, we have directions where we look that are dark because something that does not emit light (is not a star) is between us and the light. A close example is in our own solar system. When we look at the Sun (a star) during a solar eclipse the Moon blocks the light. When we look at the inner planets of our solar system (Mercury and Venus) as they pass between us and the Sun, do we not get the same effect, i.e. in the direction of the planet we see no light from the Sun? Those planets simply look like dark spots on the Sun.
Olbers' paradox seems to assume that only stars exist in the universe, but what about the planets? Aren't there more planets than stars, thus more obstructions to light than sources of light?
What may be more interesting is why can we see certain stars seemingly continuously. Are there no planets or other obstructions between them and us? Or is the twinkle in stars just caused by the movement of obstructions across the path of light between the stars and us? I was always told the twinkle defines a star while the steady light reflected by our planets defines a planet. Is that because the planets of our solar system don't have the obstructions between Earth and them to cause a twinkle effect?
9-14-2024 KP