Why? If there was a big bang, where did the material and energy,etc and whatnot come from to form it? For the bang? And if they were there, where did THEY come from? And if there were other universes and dimensions, where did THEY come from? It's not logical, because it would suggest that everything has always been which is illogical in itself: you can't get something out of nothing.

Hum,
yeah, it could be that the `nothing` was in fact `something`.
It is just from our viewpoint of living in a Space-time that it seems that it came from nothing.

So now there is no problem.

Norsefire:

you can't get something out of nothing.

That pretty much squashes any argument you might make for a beginning to the universe, if it is true.

Is your preferred position therefore that the universe had no beginning?

Note that you cannot argue something like "God created the universe out of nothing", because, as you said "You can't get something out of nothing".

Well, you got something out of God....

Norsefire:



That pretty much squashes any argument you might make for a beginning to the universe, if it is true.

Is your preferred position therefore that the universe had no beginning?

Note that you cannot argue something like "God created the universe out of nothing", because, as you said "You can't get something out of nothing".

Not necessarily - it all depends on if you believe in the God of the Bible. ;)

The reason I say that is because I saw one possible explanation that sounded pretty good. If God is all-powerful, all he had to do was expend a tremendous amount of energy in the command "Let there be light" and created equal amounts of matter and antimatter which was the Big Bang. We know that matter and anti-matter will destroy each other and leave nothing but pure energy AND that the reverse process should work as well. Ergo: "something from nothing."

The Big bang IS LOGICAL, ONLY IF, they have time reversed entities: White Holes. They COULD BE logical, if our universe is open, and have no time reversed qualities at all.

There is one slight snitch though... Hawking Radiation... it cannot exist. if the above is correct... I've just realized this.

The big bang is nonsense from beginning to end. It is science's creationism where some clown thought up the idea based on a certain interpretation of a few facts (CMB, red shift) and everyone latched onto it. However as it is regularly shown to be wrong, like creationism ever more lunatic ideas are needed to keep it afloat.

Reiku. You have a fairly steep slope lasting for 1,000 miles. About 3/4 of the way up, you place two balls next to each other. One rolls uphill and the other rolls downhill. That is how Hawking radiation works. Or rather, why it doesn't work.

Three decades or so ago, Taylor said that white holes were at the other end of black holes. If this was so, then there would be no msuper-massive black holes as they would all evaporate, via wormholes. The energy of a white hole has to come from somewhere and I can't see a viable source (since I don't believe in time as a dimension either, so it cannot be reversed).

The big bang is nonsense from beginning to end.

...some clown thought up the idea

...as it is regularly shown to be wrong
You've posted no data to suggest that the Big Bang is as wrong as you suggest.

Reiku. You have a fairly steep slope lasting for 1,000 miles. About 3/4 of the way up, you place two balls next to each other. One rolls uphill and the other rolls downhill. That is how Hawking radiation works. Or rather, why it doesn't work.

This is very incorrect, even in the highly simplified visualization of vacuum fluctuation particle-pair production near the event horizon.

In this visualization, a virtual particle pair is produced and one is "captured" by the hole and the other escapes on a different trajectory. There is no equivalent of your "uphill rolling ball" in this situation.

Just to remind folks, there isn't really a problem.
The big bang theory that most people on the street will be aware of is chaotic inflation model or similar variation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_inflation

This simply says that space and time and energy were created, before that is a meaningless statement. (ie think, hawkings book)

A refinement to this theory, to explain various observational and ,mathematical problems, lead to cyclic models or ekpyrotic models (think, lots of dimensions and M-theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Just to remind folks, there isn't really a problem.
The big bang theory that most people on the street will be aware of is chaotic inflation model or similar variation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_inflation

This simply says that space and time and energy were created, before that is a meaningless statement. (ie think, hawkings book)

A refinement to this theory, to explain various observational and ,mathematical problems, lead to cyclic models or ekpyrotic models (think, lots of dimensions and M-theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
Nice, but I think the main players here will not be impressed with your links.

Just to remind folks, there isn't really a problem.
The big bang theory that most people on the street will be aware of is chaotic inflation model or similar variation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_inflation

This simply says that space and time and energy were created, before that is a meaningless statement. (ie think, hawkings book)

A refinement to this theory, to explain various observational and ,mathematical problems, lead to cyclic models or ekpyrotic models (think, lots of dimensions and M-theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
Those 'refinements' do not explain where the previous universes came from in the cyclic model, or the branes came from in the string theories. They are not explanations, but just move the origin back further.

Those 'refinements' do not explain where the previous universes came from in the cyclic model, or the branes came from in the string theories. They are not explanations, but just move the origin back further.
Isn't the question of origins doomed to end pretty simply?

There seem to be only two possible scenarios:

1) An infinite regression of origins, or

2) An ultimate state of existence that simply always was.

Right? And if you don't like the "infinite regression" choice, you end up with the "always was" choice.

Isn't the question of origins doomed to end pretty simply?

There seem to be only two possible scenarios:

1) An infinite regression of origins, or

2) An ultimate state of existence that simply always was.

Right? And if you don't like the "infinite regression" choice, you end up with the "always was" choice.
Correct, superluminal. Those who criticize the Big Bang model because it doesn't attempt to state what was before the big bang can give no better explanation, just move the question to a point farther back in time.

Is big bang/big crunch, Alpha/omega drama accepted at all?

The entire Universe turning end over end like an hourglass.

Why? If there was a big bang, where did the material and energy,etc and whatnot come from to form it? For the bang? And if they were there, where did THEY come from? And if there were other universes and dimensions, where did THEY come from? It's not logical, because it would suggest that everything has always been which is illogical in itself: you can't get something out of nothing.

There was a big bang. We don't know where the material and energy came from. We don't know what was before, we don't know anything about the first few milliseconds. I would not say it's illogical, since the Big Bang Theory doesn't pretend to explain what you think it does, but it is a mystery.

Is big bang/big crunch, Alpha/omega drama accepted at all?

The entire Universe turning end over end like an hourglass.
The latest findings by WMAP and other experiments indicate our current universe will continue to expand. There does not seem to be nearly enough matter to halt the expansion, in fact the rate of expansion is increasing according to our best measurements. The current favored hypothesis is that our universe will end in either a heat death or a Big Rip. Is one of those scenarios a certainty? No, of course not, but cosmologist do base those scenarios on what the available evidence seems to indicate rather than the older speculation.

Hard to create a picture in a house of mirrors..... eh?


Everything that we know about the universe is purely evidence based on speculations. We don't know for certain any of these scenarios because everything is so far away that we don't have enough data to strongly support any claim. I find that the only subject that makes complete sense in terms of astronomy and astrophysics is stars and history of stars, and planets. Even then we run into problems. Everything else is just hypothesis. (Or you forgot the Big Bang is our null hypothesis?)

What's a Big Rip?

It means there is a big hole in your pants now......

What's a Big Rip?
In a nutshell, whether the universe ends in a heat death or the Big Rip depends on the type of Dark Energy that is pushing the universe apart. If the Dark Energy is an extreme type of quintessence called phantom energy, the Big Rip hypothesis is favored by some cosmologists. If the Dark Energy is more of a pressure like the cosmological constant or a milder form of quintessence, the heat death hypothesis is favored. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I personally favor the more logical heat death hypothesis. If you would like to read more about the Big Rip, wiki has some information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

Nice, but I think the main players here will not be impressed with your links.

i only used the wikipedia links because they were convenient.
Yes, those theories are old, but they were for the benefit of beginners.

Those 'refinements' do not explain where the previous universes came from in the cyclic model, or the branes came from in the string theories. They are not explanations, but just move the origin back further.

Hum,
yeah, they are not explanations for the ultimate origin(s).
But they may help explain questions as to why the universe ended up so fine-tuned, or stared off with such low entropy, and add a different perspective to the big ban event.

As to where the branes came from, or their ultimate fate is beyond our current physics. But i feel that there is no real reason not to just accept that they have always existed.

You've posted no data to suggest that the Big Bang is as wrong as you suggest.


Tell me something you consider right about the big bang (ignoring the Redshift and CMB for the moment).

In a nutshell, whether the universe ends in a heat death or the Big Rip depends on the type of Dark Energy that is pushing the universe apart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

hum,
Both will have the same effect. The only difference is the time scale it will happen in.

The near-end result is a thinning cloud of radiation in a ever expanding universe; which will ultimately result in isolated photons in their own empty `observable` universe.

(The next step is debatable but this `empty` universe may result in a `resetting` of space-time, or spitting of branes, to start the next cycle/bigbang etc...)

This is very incorrect, even in the highly simplified visualization of vacuum fluctuation particle-pair production near the event horizon.

In this visualization, a virtual particle pair is produced and one is "captured" by the hole and the other escapes on a different trajectory. There is no equivalent of your "uphill rolling ball" in this situation.


In the grand-daddy of all gravitation fields, two particles atomically close to each other. One escapes, one falls into the black hole. How?

blobrana. There is little difference between creation in science and creation in religion. Both are backed up by dogma and not by evidence. And both full of holes.

3) Maybe we do not understand "nothing" and how it can become unstable and produce "something".

4) Unknown at present.

spidergoat. The BB didn't happen. It is illogical in both cause and effect.

It's evidence can be summed up as : We do not fly off into space so that is proof that invisible demons are holding us down, so proof that invisible demons must exist.

Gravity is limited to light speed. As the universe gets bigger, gravity is less able to reach most of it, there being bigger distances between everything. So the universe expands faster. Who needs dark energy?

blobrana. It has been said that there is sufficient material in the universe that we could be inside a black hole. This would mean that there is an ultimate size that expansion of the universe could reach, in that material cannot go outside the "black hole".

kaneda,
did you not get meaning when Spock say " i feel fine" in a Star trek film?

Don't worry about it. If you feel there is little difference between creation in science and creation in religion then that is fine.

3) Maybe we do not understand "nothing" and how it can become unstable and produce "something".

Which is why is may be better to understand that `nothing` not as a `void` but as multidimentional brane (`something`). A random fluctuation or event or whatever on that brane created our spacetime. That brane is still here; and like an iceberg, we normally only see a small part of it as "our universe". But perhaps eventually that iceberg melts...and so on...

It should be said that the classical big bang scenarios don't say that there was completely `nothing`.
Space-time froth, quantum fluctuations, false vacuums, energy Seas, unified dimensions etc - all were needed - and from which sprang our BB...

(LOL. but, of course, without our `space time` to exist in it could be said that they didn't really exist!)

hum,
Both will have the same effect. The only difference is the time scale it will happen in.

The near-end result is a thinning cloud of radiation in a ever expanding universe; which will ultimately result in isolated photons in their own empty `observable` universe.

(The next step is debatable but this `empty` universe may result in a `resetting` of space-time, or spitting of branes, to start the next cycle/bigbang etc...)
The heat death hypothesis I am familiar with is not like the Big Rip. The Big Rip hypothesis relies on an increasing value in Dark Energy's 'strength' to eventually rip galaxies and matter apart, overcoming the strength of gravity and even the nuclear binding forces in individual atoms. Heat death results when the hydrogen and helium in the universe burns up through nuclear fusion in the individual stars, and has become too dilute in the vacuum to gravitationally collapse into new stars. There will still be cold, dark matter in the universe, but no heat produced by stars. Our current observations indicate that galaxies and large groups of galaxies are being gravitationally drawn together and will eventually merge. The distance between these individual superclusters is increasing, but the distance between individual galaxies in superclusters is decreasing. All the hydrogen and helium in the superclusters is likely to be used up by fusion before all this remaining cold mass forms a unimaginably large black hole through gravitational collapse. Now for some speculation by me that I have no evidence for. Is it possible that a black hole could have a maximum size before exploding or erupting in a new Big Bang? Current theory says no, but this speculation could give rise to a certain form of cyclic universes, universes born of parts of an earlier universe, the superclusters.

spidergoat. The BB didn't happen. It is illogical in both cause and effect.

It's evidence can be summed up as : We do not fly off into space so that is proof that invisible demons are holding us down, so proof that invisible demons must exist.

You are incorrect. The universe is expanding and cooling, therefore in the past it was smaller and hotter. That's pretty much all the Big Bang says.

All the hydrogen and helium in the superclusters is likely to be used up by fusion before all this remaining cold mass forms a unimaginably large black hole through gravitational collapse. Now for some speculation by me that I have no evidence for. Is it possible that a black hole could have a maximum size before exploding or erupting in a new Big Bang?

Yes, the next step is that the blackholes explodes - but very , very very slowly; and this cloud of radiation will disperse until each photon becomes isolated in their own observable universe.

The net effect is the same as the big rip - an empty spacetime (from which, it can be supposed, contain the conditions to generate a new big bang - - or not)...

If you believe the big bang is illogical and unsupportable then you must believe in a "steady state" theory. If neither one of those then you are waiting for someone to say god created the universe which takes the discission out of the realm of science and into religious dogma; making it inappropriate for a science forum. Scientist do not claim to have all the answers and readily admit to gaps in our knowledge but rather than accept things on blind faith we constantly test and refine our knowledge, making revisions when necessary. We freely admit we are frequently fishing in the dark, but at least we admit there is dark.

In the grand-daddy of all gravitation fields, two particles atomically close to each other. One escapes, one falls into the black hole. How?
If you want the texbook answer, read a textbook. Because that's all I can give you.

It may be the grand-daddy of all gravitational fields, but the only time a particle is irretrievably lost is when it is within the event horizon. There is a statistical probability that one of the pair formed at the penultimate boundry of the event horizon will have enough energy to escape. Hawking radiation is statistical in nature. It's not proven, but it comes from the math.

You can get far more detail from any number of good websites, although I suspect I already know your response to that idea.

Yes, the next step is that the blackholes explodes - but very , very very slowly; and this cloud of radiation will disperse until each photon becomes isolated in their own observable universe.

The net effect is the same as the big rip - an empty spacetime (from which, it can be supposed, contain the conditions to generate a new big bang - - or not)...
Are you speaking of the black hole evaporating very, very slowly by Hawking Radiation? Seems it would take an eternity for a black hole with the mass of several hundred galaxies to evaporate by Hawking radiation.

Are you speaking of the black hole evaporating very, very slowly by Hawking Radiation? Seems it would take an eternity for a black hole with the mass of several hundred galaxies to evaporate by Hawking radiation.
Absolutely right. But the theory is that if a "small" hole were to "evaporate" it woulf do so in an accelerating way and end in a final burst of gamma rays, since the 'evaporation' is exponential (? or some other high order function?).

I don't think you can sap energy from a black hole. Basically it is not going to lose gravity because it cannot lose mass. It's mass is what causes it's rotation so it is not going to lose rotation either.

In the early days of black holes, there was talk of naked singularities, black holes could be stationary, etc but I don't think anyone believes these early ideas any more (?)

If black holes can evaporate, we should be able to see that in cyclotrons. However, I think a black hole any size is stable. If you have a proton that has been turned into a mini-black hole, it isn't going to end up swallowing the Earth because it has the gravitational pull of a proton, which all the other protons will ignore.

@2inquisitive
yeah, there is no other known way a blackhole can explode.
(And no, the big bang was not a black hole exploding)

I don't think you can sap energy from a black hole. Basically it is not going to lose gravity because it cannot lose mass.

Hum,
that may be correct, and the final fate of the universe is to be empty, filled with isolated back holes (the end).
But i suspect most scientists would disagree. On paper, the general quantum mechanism of Hawking radiation is simple to understand and work out, and provides a slightly more eloquent solution to the final fate of the universe.
ie The BH loses mass, and the radiation cloud fades away to leave an `empty` universe. - (the end...er, or until the sequel is made...)

If black holes can evaporate, we should be able to see that in cyclotrons. However, I think a black hole any size is stable. If you have a proton that has been turned into a mini-black hole, it isn't going to end up swallowing the Earth because it has the gravitational pull of a proton, which all the other protons will ignore.

Kaneda:

You are correct that the gravitational attraction would be exceptionally weak for a miniature black hole with a mass of a few thousand protons.

However, they would 'drift' about [if stable, as you suppose], and upon 'contact' with protons [or more likely, nuclei of atoms], would absorb that mass, and grow larger. That process would be slow at first, but eventually the miniature black hole would grow to the size of an atom, and the process would become much faster.

Several persons have done calculations on the rates of these processes, and they vary from hundreds to trillions of years to consume the earth, for a single miniature black hole. Production of millions of them, of course, would substantially increase the rate of consuming the earth.

Can anyone explain to me how such a mini-blackhole comes into existence ? According to 'normal' blackhole theory those mini-blackholes can't exist.. (?)

@2inquisitive
yeah, there is no other known way a blackhole can explode.
(And no, the big bang was not a black hole exploding)
Why not?

Can anyone explain to me how such a mini-blackhole comes into existence ? According to 'normal' blackhole theory those mini-blackholes can't exist.. (?)

A primordial black hole is a hypothetical type of black hole that is formed not by the gravitational collapse of a star but by the extreme density of matter present during the universe's early expansion.

According to the Hot Big Bang Model (also called the Standard Model), during the first few moments after the Big Bang, pressure and temperature were extremely great. Under these conditions, simple fluctuations in the density of matter may have resulted in local regions dense enough to create black holes. Although most regions of high density would be quickly dispersed by the expansion of the universe, a primordial black hole would be stable, persisting to the present.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_black_hole

Many others available on the web.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_black_hole

Many others available on the web.

Super, thanks for the explanation :)
So they are purely hypothetical, like their big brothers then.
Does this theory then demands that the universe for some sort moment after the big bang was itself a black hole of this kind ? If so, does that mean that in the primordial universe black holes were being ripped apart to form smaller ones and 'free' material ?

Super, thanks for the explanation :)
Sure!

So they are purely hypothetical, like their big brothers then.
Well... ummm... I'd have to say yes. There is a 99.9% certainty that they exist based on tons of model-based and observational data, but until astronomers can directly prove that an event horizon actually exists (which several future astronomy satellites hope to do) then yes.


Does this theory then demands that the universe for some sort moment after the big bang was itself a black hole of this kind ? If so, does that mean that in the primordial universe black holes were being ripped apart to form smaller ones and 'free' material ?
That's not how I read it. What I gather is that the overall density was such that a BH would not form, but that due to quantum fluctuations, isolated miniature ones could possibly form.

As a note, the GLAST gamma ray telescope could possibly detect bursts characteristic of primordial holes that would be just now "evaporating".

Superluminal... give it a rest. It's clear you are only here to cause troubles, rather than solve them... it's also clear he (that is K) knows more than you.

Superluminal... give it a rest. It's clear you are only here to cause troubles, rather than solve them... it's also clear he (that is K) knows more than you.
Excuse me?

Son, you are shooting yourself in the proverbial foot. That's all I have to say. Bye.

Why not?

Hum,
yeah, discount that - what i meant to say was that i am unaware of any mainstream theory that allows such removal of mass from a blackhole, apart from the trickery of hawking radiation. The physics of wormholes and quantum tunnelling are not robust enough, IMHO, to make a plausible theory to remove the mass either. We just don't know what is inside blackholes; and Black holes, by definition, reside in a spacetime that does not allow for speeds greater than light speed, therefore once inside a blackhole a particle cannot escape into our spacetime.

While the big bang has superficial similarities to a blackhole, the bigbang event is thought to be the `folding` or `freezing` of spacetime itself. The universe by definition includes everything - there isn't an `outside` for it to `explode` into. It is perhaps better to regard it as an implosion, or in M-Theory, the splitting up of multi dimensions. Blackhole could be regarded as the unfolding of spacetime.
But, saying the `big bang was not a black hole exploding` was a simplified statement, (and it may indeed be wrong).

Hum,
yeah, discount that - what i meant to say was that i am unaware of any mainstream theory that allows such removal of mass from a blackhole, apart from the trickery of hawking radiation.
Why would it need to be removed?

The physics of wormholes and quantum tunnelling are not robust enough, IMHO, to make a plausible theory to remove the mass either. We just don't know what is inside blackholes; and Black holes, by definition, reside in a spacetime that does not allow for speeds greater than light speed, therefore once inside a blackhole a particle cannot escape into our spacetime.
Does that need to happen? Who said it needs to come out?

While the big bang has superficial similarities to a blackhole, the bigbang event is thought to be the `folding` or `freezing` of spacetime itself. The universe by definition includes everything - there isn't an `outside` for it to `explode` into. It is perhaps better to regard it as an implosion, or in M-Theory, the splitting up of multi dimensions. Blackhole could be regarded as the unfolding of spacetime.
Precisely.

But, saying the `big bang was not a black hole exploding` was a simplified statement, (and it may indeed be wrong).
Yes. Why don't we start a new thread on the subject. Just gimme a couple of minutes...

Here it is: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1673978#post1673978

Walter LW. Mini black holes could be formed by SINGLE particles in accelerators. You now have a proton a trillion times smaller than usual with the mere gravitational force of a single proton. I think it would bve small enough to drift through everything else, not affecting them or being affected itself in any way.

Gravity is a force of size and quantity. I don't think even a thousand proton mass is going to have any attractive force for another proton as the nuclear forces are far greater.

Walter LW. Mini black holes could be formed by SINGLE particles in accelerators. You now have a proton a trillion times smaller than usual with the mere gravitational force of a single proton. I think it would bve small enough to drift through everything else, not affecting them or being affected itself in any way.

Gravity is a force of size and quantity. I don't think even a thousand proton mass is going to have any attractive force for another proton as the nuclear forces are far greater.

Kaneda:

In colliders, the mass of the protons increases due to their near-relativistic speeds. This is about a 30,000 fold increase in mass, and collider produced MBHs would likely be several thousand a.m.u. in mass.

Again, this would not have any appreciable gravitational pull on nearby particles, and would not cause other particles to be drawn in to them while so small.

However, as they drift about, it might be possible that they would randomly 'collide' with the nuclei of atoms, and being in the 'midst' of the nucleons, would absorb that matter. There is currently debate about how quickly such a process would occur, if at all. Of course, this presupposes that Hawking Radiation does not exist, which would cause such MBH to 'evaporate' before coming into contact with such nucleons.

Excuse me?

Son, you are shooting yourself in the proverbial foot. That's all I have to say. Bye.

Proverbial and... that's all need to say :)

Kaneda:

In colliders, the mass of the protons increases due to their near-relativistic speeds. This is about a 30,000 fold increase in mass, and collider produced MBHs would likely be several thousand a.m.u. in mass.

Again, this would not have any appreciable gravitational pull on nearby particles, and would not cause other particles to be drawn in to them while so small.

However, as they drift about, it might be possible that they would randomly 'collide' with the nuclei of atoms, and being in the 'midst' of the nucleons, would absorb that matter. There is currently debate about how quickly such a process would occur, if at all. Of course, this presupposes that Hawking Radiation does not exist, which would cause such MBH to 'evaporate' before coming into contact with such nucleons.

Very wekk said, sir.... very well said.

Walter LW. Mini black holes could be formed by SINGLE particles in accelerators. You now have a proton a trillion times smaller than usual with the mere gravitational force of a single proton. I think it would bve small enough to drift through everything else, not affecting them or being affected itself in any way.

Gravity is a force of size and quantity. I don't think even a thousand proton mass is going to have any attractive force for another proton as the nuclear forces are far greater.


He does have a point mind, you, sir. :rolleyes:

I keep reading about the expanding universe. What is it expanding into?

I keep reading about the expanding universe. What is it expanding into?

Nothing.

Nothingness

Perhaps the universe is a paradox. After all, it IS infinity. This means that every single potential event in space-time has an infinite chance of happening. So, in a strange way, all theories concerning the beginning of the universe and its end are both true and false. This means that the Big Bang happened, but it didn't as well. This means the Big Rip will happen, but it won't either. It means that theres definately intelligent life out there somewhere, and also that it exists nowhere else. Thats the problem with the universe. Its self-contradicting. The very fact that it exists is a wonder.

Yup. Check out the first post in my blog.... :)

http://www.preposterousposthumous.blogspot.com/

the big bang is indeed about as 'scientific' as grimm's fairy tales...

but there is a difference...

it's a working theory... the best that could be construed from the evidence at hand... evidence that could be in some way attained, in some way measured, and in some way examined under the scientific method...

anyone who 'signs off' on the big bang theory as 'the way it happened' is short sighted...

but in science one must stay with that theory the method finds and supports... until the method disproves the theory substantially, or produces a hypothesis that 'fits' the data better and supplants the previous theory...

pane collision of M theory is a fascinating idea...

but it's not able to, under the method, supplant the big bang yet...

so we go with the best working theory that science can build on for now... even if it is nonsense... it fits the data...

i have had long conversations on this topic with some highly credentialled folks, including at nifty places like lanl and sandia... always a good discussion...

anyone with any thoughts on Juan Maldacena's ideas?...

SAM:

I keep reading about the expanding universe. What is it expanding into?

The universe contains all space. It doesn't sit in some kind of external space.

What happens as the universe expands is that everything gets further apart. Well, not exactly everything - you don't expand with the universe, for example, because the electromagnetic forces that hold your body together are much stronger than the expansive effects.

One way to think of it is that the universe is like a loaf of raisin bread being baked in an oven. As the bread expands, the raisins all move away from one another, just like galaxies in the universe all move away from one another. The difference is that the raisin bread has edges that expand into the surrounding air, whereas our universe has no edges.

That seems weird. If the universe has no edges how does it expand?

That seems weird. If the universe has no edges how does it expand?

If the universe is infinite in extent, it wouldnt matter.

What do we mean by infinity as applied to a physical thing or space?

With numbers, it means that no matter what number you pick, you can always add 1 (or whatever quantity depending on the kind of number).

With an object like a sphere, that has a definite fixed surface area, there are an infinite number of points on this finite surface. Meaning that, since a point is a dimensionless entity, between any two points can be found another point.

So what about the universe (space)? If space is infinite in 3 dimensions, this would mean that no matter how far you travelled, you could always take another step. And you could always see as far as the expansion rate would allow.

So, if the thing that is expanding is simply the whatever-it-is that defines length scales in the universe, why would an infinite volume of this not be able to accommodate this "metric expansion"?

Think of it another way. I can fairly easily imagine an infinite number line stretching away to my left and right. The numbers have some spacing. I can then easily imagine adjusting the spacing between those numbers without violating the infinite nature of the number line itself.

Does that do any good?

That seems weird. If the universe has no edges how does it expand?

It has no VISIBLE edge. Without being able to view past the horizon..(the light that has had time to reach us) there really is no way to tell if it is infinite or not. In my lifetime, I would like to see a new star popup in the night sky though so I could confirm or deny this "universe came into existence all at once" theory...

That seems weird. If the universe has no edges how does it expand?

Well, going down a dimension, consider the surface of a balloon. If you ignore the thickness of the balloon's skin (which we have to for this lower-dimensional analogy) then the skin has no edges. If an ant crawls along the surface, it never hits an "edge" and it will never fall off an edge. Paint dots on the balloon's surface and blow it up. All the dots move further apart and the surface expands, but there are still no edges.

Paint dots on the balloon's surface and blow it up. All the dots move further apart and the surface expands, but there are still no edges.

Isn't that the raisin-cake theory? Or was that just a pet name given it by my 121 professor before I dropped out? Ah ... here it is:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/990404b.gif (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest1.html)
Image credit: WMAP Cosmology 101 (NASA.gov)

Note on Edit: Ah, I had missed your prior post using the very phrase. My apologies.

• • •


There is little difference between creation in science and creation in religion

There is one fundamental difference between scientific and religious origins assertions:

Science isn't done yet. Barring any further revelations from God, religion is done.

Is the importance of this juxtaposition clear, or would you like me to explain a little further?

That seems weird. If the universe has no edges how does it expand?

That is the $64,000 question. Space I believe is an actual material which EMR travels through as waves travel through water. It cannot expand without changing what it is. I think somehow there would have to be ever more of it for expansion to work but I don't know how.

Tiassa. For that to happen, bb-ers need to explain how something can expand in four physical dimensions. A 3D expansion would mean everything moving away from a definite centre.

SAM:



What happens as the universe expands is that everything gets further apart. Well, not exactly everything - you don't expand with the universe, for example, because the electromagnetic forces that hold your body together are much stronger than the expansive effects.

That's just it. Everything is more powerful than the so-called expansive effects of the universe, even photons. We are led to believe that literally nothing more than space can drag whole galaxies, even super-massive black holes along. The expansion effect (allowing 22 km/s per million light years) works out 1 part in 427,636,363,636,363,636 (per second). It is utter nonsense!

Photons ALWAY travel at light speed. If their journey has become an atom's width longer in the second taken to travel 186,282 miles, they will totally ignore it and still only travel that 186,282 mps.

Walter LW. It could be possible that micro BH's could grab loose particles around them but I don't think they possess the gravitational pull over a large enough area to do anything about it. Very roughly. A proton is reduced on the same scale as the Earth becoming football size. Say it now has the gravitational force of a thousand protons. For it to convert another particle to black hole material, it would have to exert it's force over the whole particle which at maybe many millions of times bigger would be impossible.

I don't know if a particle could be broken down into the fabled "super-strings" but would not think this capable of doing so. I think for a viable Mini-BH which could do serious damage, we are talking one the size of a proton (a few thousand tons of material) which can then suck in atomic material.

Anyone with any thoughts on Juan Maldacena's ideas?...



Never heard of him. Could you post some of his thoughts/theories here?

Isn't that the raisin-cake theory? Or was that just a pet name given it by my 121 professor before I dropped out? Ah ... here it is:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/990404b.gif (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest1.html)
Image credit: WMAP Cosmology 101 (NASA.gov)

• • •
And what is the energy that is increasing the speed of that occurence? I hope we can all agree that if there was only one explosion in the beginning, most of the energy was released at the beginning. So most of the expansion would have occured in the beginning and then slowed down until stopped.

Besides, red shif doesn't mean expansion necessarily. All that it means is that galaxy X should be at a certain distance, but instead it is a little bit farther away.

Oh, and what about the blue shift of many galaxies?

Reiku. You have a fairly steep slope lasting for 1,000 miles. About 3/4 of the way up, you place two balls next to each other. One rolls uphill and the other rolls downhill. That is how Hawking radiation works. Or rather, why it doesn't work.

Three decades or so ago, Taylor said that white holes were at the other end of black holes. If this was so, then there would be no msuper-massive black holes as they would all evaporate, via wormholes. The energy of a white hole has to come from somewhere and I can't see a viable source (since I don't believe in time as a dimension either, so it cannot be reversed).

''Reiku. You have a fairly steep slope lasting for 1,000 miles. About 3/4 of the way up, you place two balls next to each other. One rolls uphill and the other rolls downhill. That is how Hawking radiation works. Or rather, why it doesn't work.''


Correct.... totallly. :cool:

Walter LW. It could be possible that micro BH's could grab loose particles around them but I don't think they possess the gravitational pull over a large enough area to do anything about it. Very roughly. A proton is reduced on the same scale as the Earth becoming football size. Say it now has the gravitational force of a thousand protons. For it to convert another particle to black hole material, it would have to exert it's force over the whole particle which at maybe many millions of times bigger would be impossible.

I don't know if a particle could be broken down into the fabled "super-strings" but would not think this capable of doing so. I think for a viable Mini-BH which could do serious damage, we are talking one the size of a proton (a few thousand tons of material) which can then suck in atomic material.

Kaneda:

Yes, that is an objection some have raised. In essence, they believe that a non-evaporating MBH would be essentially 'inert' and not capable of having matter 'fall in' to its event horizon, which would be extremely tiny relative to the diameter of a proton, for example.

However, we know that "particles" are also actually wave-functions; i.e. even a "proton" is actually a conglomeration of standing-waves from three quarks interacting with each other. The standing wave functions have a height but they taper to zero and rise again. Accordingly, it might be possible for such "large diameter" particle as a proton to nonetheless 'fall in' to the event horizon of a MBH.

The fact of the matter is we simply don't know, and can't tell, without experimental evidence.

If we create MBHs by the millions [as some have suggested could occur at the Large Hadron Collider, or LHC, which has been likened to a "black hole factory" by some], and earth is not destroyed one thousand years from now, then we would know they were likely safe. Conversely, we might be seeding the earth with millions of slowly-growing MBHs which could wreak havoc for our future tens to hundreds of years from now, if they don't evaporate and do in fact slowly grow.

Perhaps the GLAST satellite [see Scientific American, December, 2007, Window on the Extreme Universe by Atwood, Michelson and Ritz] will reveal evaporating MBHs. I would not bet on it, however.

Besides, red shif doesn't mean expansion necessarily. All that it means is that galaxy X should be at a certain distance, but instead it is a little bit farther away.

No, redshift doesn't indicate distance (not directly), redshift tells us how fast something is moving away from us.

If you believe in Hubbles law, then you can confidently use redshift to estimate distance, but then you are admitting expansion.

Oh, and what about the blue shift of many galaxies?

What do you mean 'many'? I know of ONE: the Andromeda Galaxy. If there are more, there aren't many more, and they would all be fairly close to our galaxy.

Oh, and what about the blue shift of many galaxies?

I'll point you to Columbia University physics student Leven Wadley and University of West Indies student David Latchman, who answer the question, "Are there any galaxies that have a blue-shift (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae384.cfm)":

Wadley: Sure there are. In particular, the Andromeda galaxy exhibits a small blueshift ....

.... if a galaxy's peculiar velocity is toward us and larger than its Hubble recessional velocity, then its light will appear blueshifted. This is possible for galaxies that are nearby like Andromeda, but as galaxies get farther away, their Hubble velocities dwarf any peculiar velocities they might have. As such, it's better to study far away galaxies when you're interested in how the universe is expanding.

• • •

Latchman: There are a handful of the nearby galaxies that are blue shifted. In addition to the apparent motion due to Universal expansion, individual galaxies also have their own intrinsic or peculiar motions; i.e. each galaxy is in motion irrespective of the universe's expansion and has its own unique velocity.

The velocities are in the order of hundreds of kilometers per second and in regions close enough to our own galaxy where the Hubble expansion results in less outward expansion than this, the galaxies' peculiar velocities (if they are large enough and sufficiently towards us) can overcome that expansion, resulting in a blue-shift.

(PhysLink.com (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae384.cfm))

Besides, red shif doesn't mean expansion necessarily. All that it means is that galaxy X should be at a certain distance, but instead it is a little bit farther away.

You appear to be suggesting a static universe and mere errors in calculation to explain the concept of a red-shift.

• • •


For that to happen, bb-ers need to explain how something can expand in four physical dimensions. A 3D expansion would mean everything moving away from a definite centre.

Part of the problem is that there is much disagreement at present about the nature of the fourth dimension. On this point, I would simply reiterate that scientists continue to work toward gathering new information to augment our understanding of the physical properties of the universe. Comparatively, religious revelations are not at present providing any new information. If you hear from God anytime soon, let me know. I would be very interested.

Were I a physicist, I might postulate regarding the interaction of time and gravity in relation to universal expansion. But I'm not, so I'll have to leave that for someone else on another day.

Just remember this simple illustration:

• Theistic origins information: |—>—>—>|
• Scientific origins information: |—>—>—>—>—>—>—>—>—> ... (and on, and on, and on)

The scientific body of information will continue to grow as long as humans continue to inquire. It is one of the universe's rare guarantees that our species will cease to exist, either by wholesale extinction or evolutionary transformation into a different species, before we run out of new information to collect and learn from.

• • •

On edit for losfomoT


If there are more, there aren't many more, and they would all be fairly close to our galaxy.

According to Latchman (above): "There are about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts .... Most of these galaxies are in our own local group, and are all in orbit around each other."

He offers this link (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-allsky?ra_constraint=Unconstrained&ra_1=&ra_2=&dec_constraint=Unconstrained&dec_1=&dec_2=&glon_constraint=Unconstrained&glon_1=&glon_2=&glat_constraint=Unconstrained&glat_1=&glat_2=&z_constraint=Less+Than&z_value1=0&z_value2=&z_unit=km%2Fs&ot_include=ANY&ex_objtypes1=Clusters&ex_objtypes1=Supernovae&ex_objtypes1=QSO&ex_objtypes2=AbsLineSys&ex_objtypes2=GravLens&ex_objtypes2=Radio&ex_objtypes2=Infrared&ex_objtypes3=EmissnLine&ex_objtypes3=UVExcess&ex_objtypes3=Xray&ex_objtypes3=GammaRay&nmp_op=ANY&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=B1950.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&zv_breaker=30000.0), with the note that "negative velocities in the z column are the blue shifted galaxies". (Note: The link is a search result from a database, and takes a while to load.)

We are at the center of the universe. This is obvious since everything is moving away from us. This is clear proof that the creator made us as the center of his creation. Nothing could be more obvious.

What's even more obvious is what exosts beyond the edge of the universe. Anyone care to guess? No?


Heaven you sillies.


I give up.

On edit for losfomoT



According to Latchman (above): "There are about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts .... Most of these galazies are in our own local group, and are all in orbit around each other."

You learn something new every day. Thanks.

Tiassa,

I'm not suggesting an expanding universe, I'm suggesting a rotating universe.

Anyone with any thoughts on Juan Maldacena's ideas?...


Never heard of him. Could you post some of his thoughts/theories here?

i mentioned it as i have been interested in his ideas for a few years... and it is so directly pertinent to this discussion...

well i think, since about 10 years ago when his ideas were first becoming known, and then well known in the physics community... the 'tag line' for his ideas have become known as "The Holographic Universe"... a simple google of his name starts you well on the road to knowing about him and his ideas... but since you asked directly, here are some direct links... not sure they are 'the best', but they at least give you an intro to him, his ideas and work...

Link... (http://www.thirteen.org/bigideas/maldacena.html)

Link... (http://people.cornell.edu/pages/jag8/greene.html)

Link... (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20071117/bob9.asp)

below is a general google link if you care to look into this further...

Link... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=juan+maldacena+holographic+universe&btnG=Search)

You learn something new every day. Thanks.

Tell me about it. I haven't studied astronomy since my PHYS 122 final over a decade ago. Every once in a while, though, something strikes me as counterintuitive (e.g. blue-shifting galaxies). And, indeed, I find myself learning something new just by looking into the phrase.

'Tis my pleasure, sir. I'm happy to be of use to someone, sometime ....

:cool:

• • •


I'm not suggesting an expanding universe, I'm suggesting a rotating universe.

Of static dimensions? Either way, that's a new one to me. Fascinating. Thank ye.

Of static dimensions? Either way, that's a new one to me. Fascinating. Thank ye.
You're welcome :)

What do you mean 'many'? I know of ONE: the Andromeda Galaxy. If there are more, there aren't many more, and they would all be fairly close to our galaxy.

The local group of galaxies which despite being fairly diffuse is able to overcome "expansion" and stay together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group

Tiassa,

I'm not suggesting an expanding universe, I'm suggesting a rotating universe.

As all very massive things in the universe rotate, I would be surprised if the universe itself did not rotate too.

Walter LW. A bit like hitting a bomb with a hammer to see if it is a live bomb.

Dr Mabuse. Thanks for the links. I'll check into them more when I get home again, as apart from having to pay for internet while on my 3 month break, internet cafes are often very noisy places and not the sort of place to study anything.

The guy is certainly prolific. I do worry in such fields where people make asserttions which are based on assertions, which are based on earlier assertions, etc. What if one of the basic principles is found to be wrong? A whole field of knowledge could collapse.

i reckon its too big to understand like humungous big so huge
they call it big bang like a collision
who knows what happened
could have been made by a heap of scientists or aliens just to see what happened in there time
prolly why we got diff colours and diff cultures for them to look at us and see what went wrong in there homes in that heavens or what ever
other wise wouldnt we have help on hand if we werent just for the seeing eye
if were that dam special then we would
we dont have no help on hand we suffer and we see hungry kids and we car accidents
we never see anything dam good not yet anyway
if we advance so do diseases and pain is more in the menu

we cant fit it in our brains the big band..but we fit every day life like driving riding bikes
but then our permanent section of brain is full so its impossible for our brain to be filled with big bang instead of reading spelling maths if we had little of this input then we could fit the big bang in but thats impossible cause no here can teach us
so everyone is left to wonder when its so dam logical when you look at it
you create the big bang if its been used already it cant be used again can only go so far
but if one person knew it all would anyone believe em
i doubt that very much there will always be judgement against people that are right
and yet there is no one to agree or disagree cause no one knows what happened

its a dangerous thing to dabble in things one dont know about when no one dabbles in aliens they dont go out for coffee but yet they want to dabble in a very dangerous dark
mirracles they call super strings they say theres only three super strings to do with the big bang
i have different views bout that the hevens have a way to fit in to accordance
like music when its off key it can get angry
when you smash anti and matter together they will get very angry
like the greek mythology bout the flickering white and black things they locked the white one up cause of disease was spread over lands and people were sick
yet know one dabbles in that no more i guess people will learn their lesson when they figure out you cant smash the matters together at high speeds
a little thing can cuase devastation
i say they are up to more than trying to figure out the big bang i say its a weather thing
more of a dangerous weapon and they dont realise it
i dont believe that the warming has caused harm to this old earth
this only happened when they dabbled in that big bang thing and they cover it up by other things
they even spent billions of dollars on machinery to put this matters together when any one with half a brain would know you cant eat you apple when its been eaten
in other words cant be used again
these people are smart yet how come they still putting it together
yeah they upto more than you think
well thats my perception anyway

thats why you dont think its logical cause its bloody not its
a weather thing and they cant control it

dont even think in the line of space or births of space
they dont want that they after weapons mate

they think we are fucking stupid
pardon my french

trust your instincts if it dont seem logicial then its not

they say gravity i say thats a block to stop you getting closer to the truth
cause gravity has control over our minds not our insticts

when i sat for those tests when i was a kid they tought me colours and grey mass is a gravity colour and thaqt colour is hard to break thru like our atmosphere

sooooo it would be hard for anyone to break thru to any big bang
is what i was taught

it has to do with they after more thn they can chew

when youn touch gun pwder it gives you a headache
if the chinese spread there weapn and give it to every one
they have a chain reaction even the bigger the weapn the bigger the chain reaction
ahmm the wether has a chin action events over and over
like a weapn
this only happened when they dabbled in the anti and matters colliding

nothing to do with big bang

Dr Mabuse. Thanks for the links. I'll check into them more when I get home again, as apart from having to pay for internet while on my 3 month break, internet cafes are often very noisy places and not the sort of place to study anything.

The guy is certainly prolific. I do worry in such fields where people make asserttions which are based on assertions, which are based on earlier assertions, etc. What if one of the basic principles is found to be wrong? A whole field of knowledge could collapse.

i don't think a field of knowledge would collapse... it would contribute in some way even if disproved... but i follow your point... a sound point at that...

this is very much what the 'big bang' theory is... an assertion on other assertions... it is quite tenuous stuff really... but it fits the small amount of data we now have so we 'run with it'...

imagination is always more important than knowledge is it not?...

what about a field of work where someone imagines a surfer riding on a wave of light... and bases science on it... talk about something that is not even an assertion... what good could come from it?...

A few years back a lot of people left the STRINGS field as they saw it as a scientific dead end (reported in the newspapers.) I know a lot of totally theoretical stuff is still going on in the field but to me it always seemed that everything was too small. It's basically go down to the size of an atom, then do it again, then yet again.

Can the knowledge ever be proven, and can it ever be of any use?

I am folowing this... don't worry... it;s all very ineresting indeed.

More news againts big bang...

"The Big Bang theory of the origin of our universe is widely accepted by the physics community. The idea that our universe started out as some infinitesimally small point, which expanded out to what we see today, makes a lot of sense. Except for one small thing. That initial point, called a singularity by physicists, is a physical impossibility. According to the models we have today, the temperature of the universe at that first moment would have had to be infinite, which mathematically makes no sense. Also, the singularity doesn't do a good job of explaining where all the matter and energy we see today in the universe came from. So, physicists are increasingly starting to look at other branches of physics to see what they can do to replace the singularity with a more reasonable proposition, one which can actually be explained by existing science. "

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/07-08/nov10.html

That initial point, called a singularity by physicists, is a physical impossibility. According to the models we have today, the temperature of the universe at that first moment would have had to be infinite

Indeed, most cosmologists, when they talk of the classical bigbang `singularity`, don't actually mean a mathematical singularity (the usual physical tools lead to nonsensical answers, so a Planck size is usually chosen as a point on a multidimentional surface where space and time start to smudge together). The temperatures and densities therefore are not infinite.

the singularity doesn't do a good job of explaining where all the matter and energy we see today in the universe came from.

Indeed, but there are now better theories (ie, M theory) that provide better answers to the early CPT violation type theories.

physicists are increasingly starting to look at other branches of physics to see what they can do to replace the singularity with a more reasonable proposition

Indeed - `done and dusted`. Now we have gone past the big bang `singularity`.

A few years back a lot of people left the STRINGS field as they saw it as a scientific dead end (reported in the newspapers.)

Where is your source for this information?

Or perhaps you mean that they moved onto M-theory, or took a skiing holiday ?

imagination is always more important than knowledge is it not?...

what about a field of work where someone imagines a surfer riding on a wave of light... and bases science on it... talk about something that is not even an assertion... what good could come from it?...

just for the record...

the 'imagination' thing is an Einstein quote...

and the surfer riding on a wave of light is how Einstein formed his theory of relativity...

Why? If there was a big bang, where did the material and energy,etc and whatnot come from to form it? For the bang? And if they were there, where did THEY come from? And if there were other universes and dimensions, where did THEY come from? It's not logical, because it would suggest that everything has always been which is illogical in itself: you can't get something out of nothing.

illogical...
depends on whose logic we are talking about. it is absurd to look for "logic" at the beginning of the universe, where today's physics dont apply to infinite heat and pressure.
unfortunately, you wont be able to explain it "logically", since your logic is bound to 4 dimensions only. however, we dont know how many dimensions exist, especially when we talk about BB.
regards

Where is your source for this information?

Or perhaps you mean that they moved onto M-theory, or took a skiing holiday ?

It was in various British newspapers, with photos, etc. I mentioned it on the Physorg forum and AlphaNumeric who is training to go into that field got quite irate and assured me it was business as usual (with the remaining people).

It was said (by Archbishop David Jenkyns) that 1 in 3 priests in the UK do not believe in certain basic tenets of christian faith (virgin birth, resurrection, etc) but do they just denounce the lot and are out of a job or do they just keep nodding their head and taking the money? The latter, obviously. I think it may be the same for many people in strings, that they are producing theories that will ultimately be of no use, except to other people in the field. Meanwhile, they have a relatively secure job.

It was in various British newspapers, with photos, etc.

Ok,
while British newspapers are generally quite accurate, i would dismiss that bit of information.


I think it may be the same for many people in strings, that they are producing theories that will ultimately be of no use, except to other people in the field. Meanwhile, they have a relatively secure job.

A good scientist will look for flaws in their work.

Ok,
while British newspapers are generally quite accurate, i would dismiss that bit of information.

A good scientist will look for flaws in their work.


Why dismiss it? They had photos of the people concerned with details to back up the story.

Not many good scientists about nowadays.

Why dismiss it?

Because i generally know about these things.

It is no big-deal / off-topic , but please post/PM your sources, if you feel that am mistaken.

None of our speculations and answers make any sense. Why would a big ball of matter just happen to be sitting there one day, and happen to explode? How would a supreme being happen by and create the world? Nothing makes sense. Nothing is something. You choose a path, and stick with it. Or, in the words of Rush from their song Free Will,
"And if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!"

Fabio4all. The big bang was contemptuously named by Fred Hoyle. It is an expansion rather than an explosion. The big bang idea, even if correct (and I doubt that) relies on something happening "elsewhere", maybe in a multiverse and producing our universe. It effectively just pushes the first cause back one step so is not really an answer.

blobrana. If you dismiss something because you do not like it, that is upto you. I know a lot of people still work in the superstring field but it seems to be purely exotic research in that nothing we can use is ever going to come from it. Worse, we may never have the slightest evidence of what can be shown to be OK theoretically because they are just too small.