Big Bang

[Billy_Dean]

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'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]

I found an interesting article about the unobservabe, here'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

Atoms were first proposed 2,400 years ago! Hard to believe, eh?

[protak]

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;

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:

[protak]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[cpt_azad]

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

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 :-" ......