I dont know alot of astro-physics or quantum, but here is my question....

Assuming that the big bang occured, there must have been imperfections in the object.

1) It must have been unstable because it expanded and "exploded."
2) There are imperfections in the universe. Meaning that the contents of the object were not situated perfectly.
3) Black holes, or "rips in space"

Can anyone provide a link to clear this up for me, or just give me some insight. Thanks.

I actually couldn't identify a question in your post.

- Warren

ok... how about: Is my hypothesis backed up by any kind of theory because I am pulling this out of my ass?

I have wondered the same thing... how can a point (naturally symetrical) explode in a way that isn't spherically symetrical.

I suppose one really easy way out would to say that the universe has an inheriently random element to it, that 'ruined' the symetric universe... but that sounds like a cop-out.

Persol has a point. It does sound like a kop-out :confused:

<i>1) It must have been unstable because it expanded and "exploded."</i>

Yes. By expanding, the universe gets to a state of higher entropy.

<i>2) There are imperfections in the universe. Meaning that the contents of the object were not situated perfectly.</i>

The big bang was not homogeneous, as is evidenced by the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation. I'm not a cosmologist, so I can't give ou the latest theories of why this was, but there are many theories if you want to do a little research.

<i>3) Black holes, or "rips in space</i>

Yes?

@ Persol

Have you proof that the universe is not spherical?

Probably it is...mostly in all `dimensions`(?) ...
There may be imperfections that were inherent from the original quantum state of the small universe that have been expanded to astronomical sizes...perhaps it were these imperfections that formed the seeds ,that grew into the large scale structures of the universe.

Ok, at least I'm not crazy. Thanks.

Have you proof that the universe is not spherical? I don't think I explained my thought process very well at all.

You have a point, which 'explodes'. Seeing as how it was originally a point, I'd imagine that the same amount of matter would expand from that point in each direction. So at a distance of 1 unit you'd have a sphere of matter with all the atoms (or whatever existed after the bigbang) in the same exact places radially.

There may be imperfections that were inherent from the original quantum state of the small universe that have been expanded to astronomical sizes How can a point have imperfections? If the universe did expand from a point, some randomness would be needed to create imperfections.

i see what you mean...

yes, the point should be `perfect`. The imperfections would have occurred (naturally) when the universe was the size of an apple. there would be quantum variabilities. These WOULD be the seeds for galaxy formation. If there was no imperfections the universe would be bland and homogeneous ; so no galaxys...

The imperfections would have occurred (naturally) when the universe was the size of an apple. there would be quantum variabilities. These WOULD be the seeds for galaxy formation. If there was no imperfections the universe would be bland and homogeneous ; so no galaxys... So doesn't the idea that one area would change different then another area imply randomness?

<i>So doesn't the idea that one area would change different then another area imply randomness?</i>

Yes. Quantum mechanics incorporates an element of randomness.

Originally posted by James R
<i>So doesn't the idea that one area would change different then another area imply randomness?</i>

Yes. Quantum mechanics incorporates an element of randomness. Thanks for the reply. I knew that uncertainty was included, but I wasn't sure if that was because of randomness or because you change a system when you observe it.

Quote

JamesR wrote: "By expanding the universe gets to a state of higher entropy"

The second law of thermodynamics states "In a closed system the degree of entropy always increases. Unless the system receives energy from an outside source" Meaning of course that a system of high order will always disintegrate in to a state of disorder and randomness if it is left alone.
But it seems to me that if we accept the Big Bang theory (which some people dont) then we had chaos in the beginning. A bunch of quarks floating around a big cloud that was trying to expand. As the cloud expanded and cooled down these quarks got together and formed atoms, 3 to each atom. this is a higher state of order than was before.
Then after more expansion and cooling some these atoms got together in seperate clouds which under the influense of gravity contracted to the point where pressure and heat was high enough to start nuclear fusion and we had bright shinnig stars. this again a higher degree of order,or less entropy if you will. Later some of these stars organised themselves into beautiful spinding lttle pinwheels like our milky way.
again a higher form of order. I could go on to planets,plants, animal and people. but let's stop right here.
What is wrong? Does the second law of thermodinamics work in reverse in space? Or is our starting assumption -the B.B.theory- wrong?

Quote;
What we observe,is not nature itself, but nature as exposed to our method of questioning.

Werner Heisenberg
in "Physics and Philosophy"

apolo:

The early universe was in a state of very high energy and low entropy. When energy changes to matter, entropy increases. When particles combine to form atoms, entropy increases. Roughly speaking, the universe is gradually spreading out its available energy, increasing in entropy all the time. In the end, unless the universe contracts again to a big crunch, everything in the universe will be at the same temperature and entropy will be at a maximum.

In the end, unless the universe contracts again to a big crunch, everything in the universe will be at the same temperature and entropy will be at a maximum.

This is why I believe in the theory of the "big crunch." Assuming that the Big Bang came from a perfect point of singularity just doesnt work in my mind. I propose that everything will one day go back into this singularity and then "out of it" into a new dimension or universe.

Picture two funnels. The small ends pointing at each other. "Water" goes into one and out of the other. Similiar to that, i guess.

The latest observations predict that the current state of the universe is one of acceleration.

It looks like space/time is very flat and the universe will expand forever...there will not be a big crunch ,due to there not being enough matter in it to slow/stop/reverse the expansion.

The funnel idea is a good one , except there is only one and it is infinitely big...

The latest observations predict that the current state of the universe is one of acceleration.

Have you ever seen a grenade explode under water?

There is an immediate acceleration and the vaccuum from the space under the water pulls everything back into it. Thats how I look at it.

If everything goes away from the original source, it will eventually go back.

hehe,
But , what is the `water` in the real universe...there is no water, only void...
If there were ENOUGH gravity, then yes, no problem...the universe would contract and maybe even explode again...

Is the idea that the universe will keep on expanding too alien to you? I find the idea very elegant.

There is evidence that the boundary conditions of the early universe has `made` the universe very flat...so flat that is probably IS flat.
(BTW if it is open then the universe still expands)

But , what is the `water` in the real universe...there is no water, only void...

Water would be dark matter. Think about it. There would have to be a huge vaccuum at the point of origin.

Did you mean beyond the reaches of the known universe?

My bad, I dum.:rolleyes:

Reply to JamesR

You said In reply to my post last night.
"The early universe was in a high state high of energy and entropy, and
when particles combine to atoms entropy insreases"
Do you realy beleive that a solar system with planets that have plants, animals and humans is a lower (higher entorpy) order of arangement of the system than a cloud of random atoms and dust particles from which the solar system was formed? if you do,all I can do is , throw up my arm and shut down the computer for the night.
I still have'nt received an inteligent answer to my 2 questions. 'did
the secund law of thermodinamics work in reverse in the early universe?" Or is the B.B. theory in question?"

Regards M. J. :confused:

Do you realy beleive that a solar system with planets that have plants, animals and humans is a lower (higher entorpy) order of arangement of the system than a cloud of random atoms and dust particles from which the solar system was formed? if you do,all I can do is , throw up my arm and shut down the computer for the night. You can have isolated areas where the entopy decreases, but everything added up in the universe would have increasing entropy.
Also, you can seemingly order a system and entropy will still go up. For example, you take a messy pile of dominos and line them up. Yet at the same time you performed work to line up those dominos, and the heat your body gives off because of that work is at a lower state. If you look at the body-domino system as a whole, the entropy will go up.

Yes Persol, We deffinitely have (isolated) areas in the universe today where entropy is decreasing. New stars are beeing created out of gas and dust clouds as we speak in many places in the universe.
My original point was (if we accept the BB theory) that in the early universe it apeared that entropy was DECREASING all over the place.
I'm well aware that current theory accepted by most people is that the universe as a whole is running down and entropy on the grand scale is therefore increasing. However I have not personaly made up my mind yet whether to accept that theory.
There are several alternate theories to the B.B. beeing proposed by qualified scientists.

Regards M.J.

Originally posted by apolo
Yes Persol, We deffinitely have (isolated) areas in the universe today where entropy is decreasing. New stars are beeing created out of gas and dust clouds as we speak in many places in the universe.
These are not neccessarily examples of decrease entropy. Ordering something on the macro level, does not make it more ordered with concerns to entropy.

My original point was (if we accept the BB theory) that in the early universe it apeared that entropy was DECREASING all over the place.
According to theory entropy was at its lowest right after the BB.
James R stated:
"When energy changes to matter, entropy increases. When particles combine to form atoms, entropy increases."

Hope this helps.

Originally posted by James R
<i>1) It must have been unstable because it expanded and "exploded."</i>
Yes. By expanding, the universe gets to a state of higher entropy.

Hi James, just wondering, but is that correct? I'm sure I read recently that the expansion of the Universe lowers the entropy of the Universe (I'll try and dig out where I found this if it helps), which would mean the Universe could start out entirely chaotic and due to expansion become ordered.

kind regards
Paul aka §lîñk€¥™

Paul:

The universe is an isolated system. In any such system, entropy increases over time, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Originally posted by James R
Paul:

The universe is an isolated system. In any such system, entropy increases over time, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Ok, I'll try to find where I read this and see what they said and if I can get some background on it.

kind regards
Paul aka §lîñk€¥™

If some people can seriously insist that an atom, with its 3 quaks neatly tucked inside its neucleus and an electron spinning around it in a stable orbit, is a higher state of entropy than a bunch of quarks bouncing around randomely like the noodles in a pot of boiling chickensoup, then I think it is time for me to leave this thread and let other people - with more patience than I have - carry on the discussion.

M.J.

Originally posted by apolo
If some people can seriously insist that an atom, with its 3 quaks neatly tucked inside its neucleus and an electron spinning around it in a stable orbit, is a higher state of entropy than a bunch of quarks bouncing around randomely like the noodles in a pot of boiling chickensoup, then I think it is time for me to leave this thread and let other people - with more patience than I have - carry on the discussion.
M.J. That's one way of looking at it, but it does not neccesarily mean that entropy has decreased in the Universe as a whole even if quarks have been confined inside atomic nucleii.

kind regards
Paul aka §lîñk€¥™

Exactly. The atom may have lower entropy, but to form the atom in the first place entropy had to increase in the universe.