Prove it.

Hi Physics Monkey...

I liked your answer to superluminal's questions. The terminology I am used to using has mathematics as its origin rather than physics, but I could translate pretty well.

Re: Einstein. Einstein's reasons for including the cosmological constant were wrong. Working on general relativity, he concluded that gravity must be collapsing the universe. He believed, however, that the universe was steady state. He needed a fudge factor to counteract gravity, and thus the cosmological constant.

As it turns out, there does indeed seem to be a repulsive force, not yet understood, but it does not mean Einstein's original idea was not flawed.

On another topic...I can see why the average Joe has trouble understanding the expansion of the universe. He may have some grasp of Euclidean 3-space, but has no experience in thinking about more complex topological spaces. Without such experience, it is very hard to visualize what is happening.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

superluminal...

Sorry man, I kind of skipped over your post and didn't see the questions.

Physics Monkey is right, we really have no effing clue what happened before the BB, or even if that question has any meaning. At the energy density of the very early universe, quantum mechanics and relativity both break down and give nonsense answers.

There has been a lot of conjecture, but no proof for any of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Antimatter has been observed. Are you not aware of this? I can provide sources if you'd like.

A Universe will always be closed because no matter what you believe it can still only expand at C.

Finally, how would you explain the observations about the remnants of the Big Bang we are able to pick up right now? If you turn on your TV and tune it to a station that doesn't exist, when you see the fuzzy white, black and grey pixels buzzing around the screen some of these (around 10%) are from the big bang.

Of course it is very hard to imagine more than 3 spacial dimensions, but it isn't impossible. Also one form of string theory has 6 dimensions, another 26, another 10, so it's actually 6 or more.
I'm not a string theory expert but I am studying it and the 6 dimensional model can be demonstrated and understood on paper (using multiple-stage diagrams)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

we are all aware of antimatter. I am not sure how it is relevant, it is not anti-mass.

that is not really true. as I understand it, nothing can move through space greater than c, but space can go as fast as it wants (I think, correct me if I am wrong).

 

Are you guys ready for a debate? I can start a thread and we will take this point by point. (laughs) Ready?

 

Lovely, thats what I wanted to make clear. Humans have finite minds and can only understand things finitely. There is a very old arabic proverb that goes "you see what you want to see, then you see what you can see forth". The reason why the big bang has gained attention for so long is because scientists can't analyze an ever changing mind warping experience such as the infinite universe, besides an infinite universe will make human science feel inadequate and non universal. Make no mistake about it, validity is the most sort after feeling in humans and perhaps in the univserse, thats why science and religion would rather point to a beginning, at least as far as they can bare it and suffice to say as far as they are concerned. This makes the scientistist a little short of clergy men and science as the universe is concerned is politics, one idea here in the milky way is a feeble dribble in a far off galaxy. All because the universe is infinite. I know its hard to bare and imagine, but the fact is that nothing comes from nothing and finite is a subset of infinite. If there is a "now" there has to be a forever, otherwise the whole sequence will collase on itself and a "now" will be all there is , and a "now" will dissapear, but disappear into a forever. So forever is all there is. The universe was not created, it is impossible, it simply evolves. Granted our universe may have been created, I'll give you that, but all in all another universe must have existed before this inception. Its very simply folks, nothing comes from nothing, not even nothing. I don't regard myself as a scientist, even though I am one, but I am simply an observer.

 

EmptyForceOfChi: Do you have an example of any statement which you consider to have been proven? More than one example would be most enlightening.

I would like to know what your concept of a proof is.

 

ok Mr. scientist, give me 5 pieces of evidence that support your ideas and reject current, mainstream, ideas.

you should refer to these bits of evidence numerically, so was can discuss them easier.

 

Yes, I for one am absolutely ready for a debate. Now let's see what you have discovered that the most brilliant theoretical physicists of modern time have not.

 

Nowhere does the Big Bang theory state that nothing came from nothing. The Big Bang started with a singularity, this isn't a new concept either, it was something Stephen Hawking proved even before he got his PhD.
A singularity isn't nothing, and it certainly contains enough information to create a universe. The density of matter and the gravitational field are both infinite inside a singularity.

 

PM and PS,

Ahhh, yes. PM, that was an extremely excellent answer. I read science books and magazines regularly and thought I had a pretty good grasp of the concepts, but have never come a cross a more simple and clear description of the universe's expansion.

So, the universe has always been (most likely) infinite in extent and is indeed all there is. It's just the metric of spacetime that is changing. Yes? Every point expanding away from every other point, as you said.

So, there was still space but the scale factor was incredibly reduced from what it currently is. Resulting in all of the matter/energy we see today (within our hubble horizon) being compacted (and therefore incredibly hot and dense) into this atomic size region. But there were, and still are, an infinite number of these regions still infinit in extent, but just scaled differently. Yes?

 

I just thoght of a better visualisation of the BB than the popular exploding point or expanding baloon.

I picture the universe as an infinite three-dimensional array of baloons. No matter what their size, there are still an infinite number of them, infinite in extent. Each baloon represents a hubble volume for inhabitants at its center (I know there is really a unique hubble volume for every observer...). So at the beginning, the scale of each of these "baloons" was on the order of an atomic nucleus. Then BANG! they all begin expanding and cooling to the point we see today. Yay! I like it! Thanks again PM.

 

I just noticed that when I get excited, my typing goes to shit...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I like it too, but suggest one slight and one not so slight modification.

The slight one:
Lets replace the baloons with cooking rasin cup cakes. - I.e. inside each of your "ballons" there are rasins growing farther apart from each other. Each rasin is also absorbing water and swelling but as rasins are small compared to cup cake diameters, the main efect of the changing scale is seen as all rasins moving away from each other, and rasin can be identified with galaxies, etc. Unfortunately, but not of much concern to us, as I understand if, eventually this swelling of the rasins will isolate every star from any that were once "near by" ones in their common rasin, much later it gets even worse as planets get isolated from their star (sun) etc.

The more complex modification:
First there is no reason to think that all the cup cakes were put into the oven "at the same time" and probably the concept of "at the same time" is very ill defined, or nonsense.

Secondly, there is no space between the cup cakes, no paper cups holding them apart. Infact, they have alway been in contact and are all growing, but perhaps not at same rate as they may not have entered the oven "at the same time," whatever that may mean, if anything. Even within our "cup cake" /universe, I see no reason to believe it is all growing at the same rate, "now" but again "now" does not make much sense except for "our solar area's now" (really the old "at the same time" or "simultaneously" problem.)

Thirldly, note that space is really defined by the cup cakes, in some sense, but the space of each cup cakes is very empty, so I see no reason why the cup cakes can not be themselves sharing some space, / "interpenetrating." Because of this, it does not make a lot of sense, to think there are a bunch of separate cup cakes, only one very big, growing cake.

So it seems to me, you (and I to some extent) have just rediscovered the well know model of the universe as a baking rasin cake; however, coming to this view by our route, does have the advantage, IMHO, of making it clear that some very distant parts of our universe, may have different expansion rates, unless there is some strong experimental reason (or very solid theoretical one) to rule that out. - I am not well enough versed in all this to know, but supect that it is the "drunk looking under lamp post for lost keys" effect* hereafter, DLULPFLK effect. I.e. problem is hard enoungh even with ASSUMPTION that all of our universe has same rate of change of scale factor.

Again I may be wrong that this an unsupported assumption, made only to make the analysis feasible, so let me illustrate the DLULPFLK effect* in a physical application where I am nearly sure the simplfying assumption or "DLULPFLK effect" is needed, but false:

In early universe, most "first stars" (called "generation III", so help me Newton! - Astronomers are very good at job entry prevention / competion jargin. They also call Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen "metals" and these three are among the most important "metals" for them, as I understand it, but I digress.) were much bigger, typically 50 to 350 solar masses, and all died rather quickly by solar lifetime standards, leaving ONE black hole behind in a really big "supernova" event.

I think this is based on an assumption of symetric collapse after the core is mainly iron, but that does not seem very plausible, only very mathematically convenient - I. e. the DLULPFLK effect.

What really happended, I think, is that because the fusion rate is extremely sensitive to temperature, some near central piece of these large stars happened to be a little hotter that the exact mass center. This caused it become hotter still. (An instability as even though the fusion rate is going down as the square of the particle density as that drops with temperature, the thermal increase has a much stronger effect upon the fusion rate.) Consequently, it is highly unlikely that the collapse and supernova are spherically symetric, as the DLULPFLK effect makes the astrophysicists assume. I expect that the mass in each of these giant stars makes a sequenced of black holes as the supernova expelled ions from the first fall back to some common gravitational center and now reasonalbly well mixed again, make more iron etc. to repeat the cycle. Thus, I believe there are many (more than all the gen III stars that ever existed) gravitationally bound pairs of black holes. Gen II made quite a lot also. See web site under my name for more discussion about this and possible current induction of a cosmic disaster for Earth.
-------------------------------------
*He knows his keys were lost in a dark parking lot down the block, but he has no ability to search there so he does what he can.

 

of cause there are evidences of the big bang, I for one believe this through evidence, but I just wanted to make clear that this should not be regarded as the ORIGIN or BIRTH of the universe. I think the whole topic is based on misconception.

 

Devil,

I don't think anyone is arguing with you. The universe is probably eternal, just changing state once in a while.

 

The point is that at this point in time we can't possibly predict whether this big bang was the first or 2nd or millionth time. Our mathematics can't see back to the point of the big bang, let alone before it.

Furthermore, the big bang was the birth of this Universe, that's the point of the big bang. Even if the Universe is on an infinite cycle (which is purely hypothetical) after each big bang it would be a completely new Universe that is "born", therefore the big bang does explain the birth of this Universe.

 

I have been contending that a oscillating/cyclic model could have have arisen because, "We and the Universe around us could be involved in an ongoing, staged process of self-creation; wherein and whereby the Creator of us and the Universe around us is attempting to create itself."
aguy2