Basic Question

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

- Warren

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ 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.

 

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.

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...

 

So doesn't the idea that one area would change different then another area imply 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"

 

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...

 

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)

 

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