PDA

View Full Version : Big Bang



protak
11-12-2003, 10:49 PM
Do you or Do you not believe in the Big Bang theory. Was the universe created 15 billion years ago?

Nasa (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html)
or
Another (http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html)
or
More (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm)

Triadcool
11-13-2003, 12:06 AM
There has already been something on this. Search before you post. <_<

protak
11-13-2003, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Triadcool@13 November 2003 - 00:06
There has already been something on this. Search before you post. <_<
My mistake sorry&#33;&#33; :lol: ;)

Billy_Dean
11-13-2003, 07:48 AM
I&#39;ve always had a problem of exactly what it is the universe is expanding into. I see it like a bubble growing larger in water. What is this "nothing" made of? Superstring theory suggests that the universe, instead of expanding into nothing, is actually converting nothing into universe. This does not exclude the big bang, it just changes the circumstances. There are anomilies with the BB theory as it stands, the shape of the universe for a start, which should, if BB is correct, be spherical which it isn&#39;t.

The Big Bang Theory is slowly creeping into more and more people&#39;s mind, which is a good thing. String theory will, I believe, answer questions we are now asking.


:)

Billy_Dean
11-13-2003, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Triadcool@13 November 2003 - 10:06
There has already been something on this. Search before you post. <_<
Why do people like you feel the need to be so gruff? If you have something to say, say it nicely or not at all.


:)

soopaman
11-13-2003, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@13 November 2003 - 08:48
The Big Bang Theory is slowly creeping into more and more people&#39;s mind, which is a good thing. String theory will, I believe, answer questions we are now asking.




I&#39;m a fan of Big Bang theory but have a few reservations with regard to SuperString Theory. Mainly that experimentation to prove the existence of Strings hasn&#39;t been developed yet. That&#39;s not to say it won&#39;t be developed in the future but the amounts of energy needed to "uncover" these subatomic particles is staggering and there&#39;s not enough natural resources on this planet to build an atom smasher powerful enough or large enough to accomplish this. Still the unification of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics could well lie in the direction of SuperString Theory. Only time will tell I guess. :lol:

UKMan
11-13-2003, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by protak+13 November 2003 - 01:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (protak @ 13 November 2003 - 01:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Triadcool@13 November 2003 - 00:06
There has already been something on this. Search before you post. <_<
My mistake sorry&#33;&#33; :lol: ;) [/b][/quote]
you might like to join in bro:
http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=80700

Peace
UKMan

Barbarossa
11-13-2003, 10:29 AM
The problem with not believing the big bang theory is you have to then explain the 3 degree background radiation..

<_<

Anyway, for those people always asking what is it expanding into, let us just think about dimensions..

Imagine a 2 dimensional being, lets call him Stanley. (sic.) Now lets say that Stanley lives on the surface of a balloon, in essentially a 2 dimensional universe. If you as a three dimensional being start to inflate the balloon, Stanley can see that his universe is expanding, but being a 2-dimensional being, he cannot comprehend that his universe is expanding in 3 dimensions. He just knows it&#39;s getting bigger.

Now compare this to our universe of 3 dimensions, being 3 dimensional beings ourselves we have no way of comprehending what our universe is expanding into, we just know that it is getting bigger...

:blink: :unsure:

Billy_Dean
11-13-2003, 11:55 AM
The big bang had a cause, or it could never had happened. That cause took place in pre-universe space. The universe is now expanding into whatever the universe expands into, if there was nothing to expand into, it could not expand. To say there was nothing before the big bang is ludicrous. There was no universe before the big bang, that should not be confused with there being nothing at all before it. Maybe you could explain that to Stanley.


:)

muchspl2
11-13-2003, 12:10 PM
lots of unanswered questions, why is everything expending faster than it should? is it anti gravity, is there a cosmological constant like Einstein first thought?

I also think string theory can/will solve most problems, but its more philosophy since it can&#39;t be proved right

Billy_Dean
11-13-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by muchspl2@13 November 2003 - 22:10
I also think string theory can/will solve most problems, but its more philosophy since it can&#39;t be proved right
I think you may be right there. It may be that string theory answers all our questions, but can never be proved.


:)

Billy_Dean
11-13-2003, 05:04 PM
I found an interesting article about the unobservabe, here&#39;s a part of it ...

While atoms were first proposed 2400 years ago by Leucippos and his student, Democritos of Abdera, the idea remained in the backwash because no evidence favored their existence. But Robert Boyle changed all that in his 1661 The Sceptical Chymist where he proposed to redefine the equally old concept of “element.” A century later Antoine Lavoisier adopted Boyle’s new definition and presented lots of examples as compelling evidence that the new definition was much more useful than the original. Almost immediately chemists discovered that elements always combine in set volume and weight ratios. Sometimes elements also combine in several ratios where one ratio is a multiple of the other.

John Dalton in the first decade of the 19th century proposed that atoms must exist. Dalton’s atomic theory was quickly and widely accepted because it was apparently the sole explanation for set mass and volume ratios and multiple proportions. That matter exists in invisibly small units called atoms and in clusters of atoms called molecules is now universally accepted.

Atoms & Moles: Accounting for the Unobservable (http://homepage.mac.com/dtrapp/Mole.html)

Atoms were first proposed 2,400 years ago&#33; Hard to believe, eh?



:)

protak
11-13-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by UKMan+13 November 2003 - 08:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (UKMan @ 13 November 2003 - 08:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by protak@13 November 2003 - 01:19
<!--QuoteBegin-Triadcool@13 November 2003 - 00:06
There has already been something on this. Search before you post. <_<
My mistake sorry&#33;&#33; :lol: ;)
you might like to join in bro:
http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=80700

Peace
UKMan [/b][/quote]
Thank&#39;s UK man, I shall have a look :beerchug: :D

protak
11-13-2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+13 November 2003 - 12:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 13 November 2003 - 12:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-muchspl2@13 November 2003 - 22:10
I also think string theory can/will solve most problems, but its more philosophy since it can&#39;t be proved right
I think you may be right there. It may be that string theory answers all our questions, but can never be proved.


:) [/b][/quote]
If the string theory answer&#39;s all our question&#39;s, but can never be proved, how will we know these answer&#39;s to be fact&#39;s...

P.S. BTW Thank&#39;s mate&#33;&#33; ;)

Billy_Dean
11-13-2003, 05:31 PM
If they answer our questions, science can act on that to carry out experiments to prove the new theories, this is how all great scientific breakthroughs came about, electrons led to electricity, the theory of x-rays led to x-ray machines, atoms to atom bombs.

PS. You&#39;re welcome.

protak
11-13-2003, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@13 November 2003 - 17:31
If they answer our questions, science can act on that to carry out experiments to prove the new theories, this is how all great scientific breakthroughs came about, electrons led to electricity, the theory of x-rays led to x-ray machines, atoms to atom bombs.

PS. You&#39;re welcome.
Yes I understand your point, but science is&#39;nt alway&#39;s based on fact&#39;s. It is mainly based on theory, and we all know some thories have been complete rubbish.

Billy_Dean
11-13-2003, 06:28 PM
That&#39;s right Tim, not all theories come to anything, but they are usually replaced by other, better theories. That&#39;s the essence of the scientific method, the theories are there to be proved or disproved. No scientist has ever claimed the big bang is fact, that&#39;s why it&#39;s called The Big Bang Theory. The importance of string theory, and all new theories, is to give us a direction to look, if we hadn&#39;t looked for electrons, we wouldn&#39;t have electricity, and yet the theory of electrons was probably ridiculed when it was first proposed.


:)

Jems
11-13-2003, 07:32 PM
The big bang had a cause, or it could never had happened. That cause took place in pre-universe space. The universe is now expanding into whatever the universe expands into, if there was nothing to expand into, it could not expand. To say there was nothing before the big bang is ludicrous. There was no universe before the big bang, that should not be confused with there being nothing at all before it.

The universe isn&#39;t supposed to be expanding into anything, rather, space is stretching. You can imagine a universe with an infinite spacial dimensions, but where every point is moving away from every other point. There is no &#39;border&#39;. Otherwise, we would have the very odd situation of being at the exact centre of an expanding universe. There is no real centre.

Also, the big bang did not necessarily need a cause. While you may think of everything as being cause and effect, and of exactness of position, speed, time etc, the universe does not really work this way. It is impossible to determine anythings exact speed or position, and not everything has a cause. It seems that the laws of quantuam mechanics were operating before the big bang, this would allow for space and matter to appear from nowhere. Space is not just nothing, a container. It is something more tangible. At a quantum level it is actually &#39;frothy&#39;.

Release your mind from its prison of the &#39;realities&#39; of everyday life :)

junkyardking
11-13-2003, 11:56 PM
There&#39;s actualy a theory called the COSMIC MEMBRANE THEORY which explains what happened before the big bang, it was able to explain alot of what string theory couldnt.

In laymans terms an infinite amount of universes float in a quantum soup they think that when two of these universes crashed into each other it created this universe,

Actualy the theory supports infinite dimesions e.g. like the tv program sliders or some epsiodes of star trek.

There was a bbc doco about it http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/...lunitrans.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml)

cpt_azad
11-14-2003, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by junkyardking@13 November 2003 - 15:56
There&#39;s actualy a theory called the COSMIC MEMBRANE THEORY which explains what happened before the big bang, it was able to explain alot of what string theory couldnt.

In laymans terms an infinite amount of universes float in a quantum soup they think that when two of these universes crashed into each other it created this universe,

Actualy the theory supports infinite dimesions e.g. like the tv program sliders or some epsiodes of star trek.

There was a bbc doco about it http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/...lunitrans.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml)
ya, i saw a documentary on this membrane thing last night on discovery. it proposes that the universe is flat, and is much like a membrane, and that there are other universes next to us, in a higher existance. kind of like this:

a bread that is cut into slices, we are one of those slices (our universe, while the other slices are other universes that r right next to us, but we can&#39;t see them or get any indication of them because the laws of physics, matter and pretty much everything is different in these other universes. This membrane theory also supports the string theory, as the string theory is the backbone of this membrane theory. But you have to take into account that the big bang could have happened, but then the laws of physics would not apply to this universe at such a point. confused yet? okay, in english now: if u went back in time to the big bang (right when it happened), and then paused or froze time/space/matter, and sort of rewinded it to the part where the "bang" is taking place, and everything is expanding and is super compressed, the laws of physics would not apply in that space/time but, surprisingly and awakwardly, the laws of physics and matter still apply in the present state that the universe is in. also, if the big bang did happen, that would mean that the universe is some sort of shape, a 3d figure, most likely a sphere, or a 3d oval (or something). This shape that the universe is in wouldn&#39;t really make much sense of the theory that space/time can be folded. english: on a piece of paper, there are 2 dots, point a and point b, which are spread apart from each other, what&#39;s more easier, getting from point a to point b in a straight line? Or folding the piece of paper so that point a is on top or underneath point b, in which case u wouldn&#39;t have moved at all, u just manipulated or folded space/time or distorted the space/time continuim. This folding theory is popular, but if the big bang is true, than is theory cannot exist because in order for it to work, the universe would most definately have to be flat, and not a 3d shape, cuz last time i checked, u can&#39;t fold a 3d shape and make 2 points on top of each other.

Just my 2 cents :-) , wait, now i sound like a nerd :-" ......

Billy_Dean
11-14-2003, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Jems@14 November 2003 - 05:32
The universe isn&#39;t supposed to be expanding into anything, rather, space is stretching. You can imagine a universe with an infinite spacial dimensions, but where every point is moving away from every other point. There is no &#39;border&#39;. Otherwise, we would have the very odd situation of being at the exact centre of an expanding universe. There is no real centre.

Also, the big bang did not necessarily need a cause. While you may think of everything as being cause and effect, and of exactness of position, speed, time etc, the universe does not really work this way. It is impossible to determine anythings exact speed or position, and not everything has a cause. It seems that the laws of quantuam mechanics were operating before the big bang, this would allow for space and matter to appear from nowhere. Space is not just nothing, a container. It is something more tangible. At a quantum level it is actually &#39;frothy&#39;.

Release your mind from its prison of the &#39;realities&#39; of everyday life :)
Something had to set the big bang off, it had no reason to just happen. If all the energy presently in the universe came from the first singularity, it must have had a cause. As for space stretching, what space? The universe? Where does infinity come into this? The universe is a finite size, "space" outside the universe is not, or there would be nowhere to expand into.


:)

ilw
11-14-2003, 08:57 AM
I think the big bang theory is by far the best so far, for me the most convincing evidence is that if you look at the speed and direction of the galaxies visible to us you can see that they would have occupied the same space 15 billion years ago. Using other measures theres evidence that 15 billion years is roughtly the age of the universe, so it seems logical to assume it all came from one point. Theres also evidence that the early stages had to be really hot.
Personally thats enough evidence for me to believe in a big explosion, of course it doesn&#39;t answer the questions of what came before


How can an infinite universe have a beginning in time?

In general relativity, a universe with an infinite spatial extent today ( something you can establish experimentally) must also have had an infinite spatial extent at its instant of &#39;birth&#39;. But you don&#39;t have to throw one infinity at another to, relativistically, make sense out of this as we might want to do not knowing intuitively what infinity is all about. An infinite universe can have an origin at a finite moment in the past because, in general relativity, one can have a &#39;singularity&#39; condition in which the volume of 3-d space vanishes at a finite moment in the past, so that even if the 3-d space was still infinite at that moment, the separations between nearby and distant points reached a limit of zero separation at the same time. Rather than having to drag this moment into the eternal past to &#39;logically&#39; solve the problem ( which would not work physically), you can solve the problem at the instant of creation, and place this instant at a finite time in the past. This is the unique solution offered by general relativity for a &#39;problem&#39; that had bedeviled philosphers since the time of Saint Augustine.


If space and gas started everything going, where did these things come from?

We know that &#39;space&#39; and &#39;gas&#39; are two very different things, but long ago they were actually one and the same. Because Einstein&#39;s general theory of relativity works so well, we have to accept for now its description of space and time as only aspects of the gravitational field of everything in the universe...gas...energy...matter...light. Near the Big Bang, gravity amplified itself by feeding off of its own energy in a complex and brief state, which ended in this gravitational energy producing the first generations of particles and anti-particles. These later decayed into, not only the familiar electrons and quarks, but also into the particles of light and the essences of the other fundamental forces in existence today. Mathematically we can describe much of this transformation, because many of its key ingredients have been seen by physicists already, at their laboratories. But the earliest conditions have yet to be artificially re-created so that we can thoroughly test our best theories.

So, gas was once part of space; space remains indistinct from gravity, and so everything we see around us was once part of the invisible field we call gravity...which flashed into existence billions of years ago.

Clear as mud.
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/acosmbb.html