Originally posted by Blaxican
It's a lot easier to just say god did it. ha.
That's true, but even that leaves plenty of holes to fill in. Human biengs are a curious race. We follow a endless chain of cause and effect. I doubt saying God did it will stop people from learning how he did it. If he did it that is. 😄
Re: Big Bang Theory Question.
Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
[b]hmm
Okay, so let's say the big bang theory is correct. That there was just one huge explosion that created everything and life as we know it....
Well, first of all... Where did the explosion come from?
And wouldn't it have to end at some point in time>?
It couldn't go on forever could it?
So wouldn't that make out universe either never ending in size? Or if it did stop, what is beyond the universe? Something has to be there.
..... I'm just wondering what people think.
vincent
[/B]
1.) From what I can remember The Big Bang was a supersymmetical microsingularity unified under all of the field forces we find in the present day universe. The explosion disrupted the bond between these forces and caused the expansion of elementry particles. Bonding, these particles created Stars, other anomalies and celestial objects.
2.) I suppose you are reffering to the expansion of our universe correct? There are two answers to this question actually. The ending would be the Big Crunch where the universe contracts and collapses into a fiery catyclysm. The universe could also go on expanding forever and ever. Of course niether of the two are better than the other. We either die being incinerated or frozen to death. If the human race lives long enough to witness this that is.
3.) What is beyond our universe? To tell you the truth many people don't know. We can speculate on things like the multiverse and parallel universes/realities, but one of the most interesting hypotheses is the concept of "universe budding." We could have been a bubble of false vaccum that split from a much larger universe or universes. In essence we grew from the seed of another plant.
The Big Shrink! It's the day the universe will stop expanding and will shrink back down to the size of a pen top, the very opposite of the Big Bang. Is this what will most likely end our universe? Or is it something else.
Another question, some where out there, are the conditions right for another Big Bang and if there is, what will happen to us?
Perhaps time never begun exactly.
If time had a beginning then there was a t=0 in the universe like a first instant of time. But when we are talking about that first instant we are ignoring quantum mechanics.
I mean, when we put quantum mechanics in, then we have to agree that we cannot define a precise begining for time. There is no t=0 since the uncertainty principle will not allow us to define a precise instant at which time begun.
So I think we would fall in the false vacuum thing and the string theory.
How reading some of your posts is quite interesting. I've always been amazed by the question of: 1.) What caused the Big Bang? 2.) What actually existed prior to the Big Bang? The question of what will eventually happen to the universe is not as intiuguing to me because humankind will have LOOOOOONG since been extint so the question itself is moot.
I agree that SOMETHING needed to exist before the Big Bang. Time itself could not have come into existence from nothingness??!!
One the most intersting theories i've heard recently coming out from the scientific community is that physicists are now therizing that our universe may in fact just be one universe floating like a bubble among an ocean of universes!!! WOW That, to me, is Mind-Blowing!!!!
Originally posted by King Nothing
The Big Shrink! It's the day the universe will stop expanding and will shrink back down to the size of a pen top, the very opposite of the Big Bang. Is this what will most likely end our universe? Or is it something else.Another question, some where out there, are the conditions right for another Big Bang and if there is, what will happen to us?
Some believe there are Big Bangs occuring every other day in some far distant universe. Nothing will happen to us. I believe by the time the universe freezes or contracts the human race would already be nonexistant.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Perhaps time never begun exactly.If time had a beginning then there was a t=0 in the universe like a first instant of time. But when we are talking about that first instant we are ignoring quantum mechanics.
I mean, when we put quantum mechanics in, then we have to agree that we cannot define a precise begining for time. There is no t=0 since the uncertainty principle will not allow us to define a precise instant at which time begun.
So I think we would fall in the false vacuum thing and the string theory.
Agreed and this ties into what I stated with a "budding universe."
scientists in jersey actually recreated the big bang, to a degree, by colliding gold particles at 99%C. the effect is temperatures so hot that matter reverts to "gluons", which apparently haven't existed since the first hundreth of a second in our universe. i guess a side effect is four-dimensional micro black holes (???)
i think the only thing we learned from that experiment is that the universe was initially in a liquid state, not solid or gas as previously assumed.
that's what the article said. if gluons hold quarks together, they're the smallest known form of matter, right? the heat forced everything to come undone to it's basic state, which was gluons and one other "on" i don't recall.
and apparently it was liquid. it was in scientific american or something similar about a month ago. i'm sure if you googled "new jersey big bang experiment" something would come up.
Originally posted by Alliance
Well thats just wrong. Gluons actively hold quarks together. Last time I checked, protons and neutrons were still around, meaning gluons are as well.I also think the initial state of the universe was plasma, not liquid.
Agreed. The Initial state of the universe was way to hot for any of the particles to combine. They were immediately annihilated, heck even light was torn apart. I don't think it could have existed in a liquid state. Plasma makes more sense.
Originally posted by manorastroman
that's what the article said. if gluons hold quarks together, they're the smallest known form of matter, right? the heat forced everything to come undone to it's basic state, which was gluons and one other "on" i don't recall.
Yeah, the smallest "known" form of matter. I'm sure if we ever get around to building a supercollider we can find particles much smaller.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Before that? There was always something.The idea that time could ever definitively begin is flawed.
-AC
but that something is undefineable -- in every conceiveable way. and i don't think that a 'beginning to time' is flawed. neither does stephen hawking. 🙂 for time to 'pass' space needs to exist, relations need to exist. if we were somehow able to look beyond the big bang to . . . whatever nothingness existed, THEN time would exist because there would be an observer to measure it -- something in relation to the 'nothingness'.
Time is something that is only measured from a reference point. The Universe as we know it was born so-and-so billion years ago, for example. Approaching “time zero”, the exact instant in which the Big Bang occurred, mathematics breaks down completely.
When the universe was created, it didn’t have three dimensions, it had four. You need dimensions to describe anything within a certain space; time is one of them. It dictates that things fall into a certain sequence of order and not all at the same time, which is what Einstein pretty much said.
Originally posted by leonidas
but that something is undefineable -- in every conceiveable way. and i don't think that a 'beginning to time' is flawed. neither does stephen hawking. 🙂 for time to 'pass' space needs to exist, relations need to exist. if we were somehow able to look beyond the big bang to . . . whatever nothingness existed, THEN time would exist because there would be an observer to measure it -- something in relation to the 'nothingness'.
There couldn't be a beginning to time. Because if time had to begin and time didn't exist before it, how did the time pass in order to get to that point?
It's a flawed concept.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There couldn't be a beginning to time. Because if time had to begin and time didn't exist before it, how did the time pass in order to get to that point?It's a flawed concept.
-AC
Time isn't definite, it's sequential and it has to do with our universe in question when it was created, it had four unique dimensions. Such a concept demands a reference point in spacial time. We can describe reference frames in three dimensions and time as the fourth. You cannot describe nothingness; time didn't exist until after the Big Bang.
Originally posted by DarkC
You cannot describe nothingness; time didn't exist until after the Big Bang.
That's entirely false. If nothingness existed before the big bang, and time didn't exist, time couldn't pass. If time couldn't pass, nothingness couldn't have and the big bang wouldn't have happened at all.
Just because the concept of measuring time didn't exist, doesn't mean time didn't.
The concept of measured time is the most flawed idea ever, because a human mind simply decided how we perceive time, we have no basis on how accurate it is.
-AC