 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / April 2007possible big bang misconception
When people discuss the big bang, you often hear someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'? And while such a question marks the start of an argument from ignorance, I'm inclined to think that such a question exhibits some misconception. What is the currently held view in relation to this? I've read that the start of the big bang was due to a collision(I suppose a collision taking place in a higher dimension?) and producing this three dimensional result(our universe). Thoughts? -- conrad > When people discuss the big bang, you often hear > someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Thoughts? When Apollo farted the other gods took offense. One of them opened a window to "the unresolved universe" and fanned the fart out the window, promptly shutting it once the stench was gone. And here we are. There are many other windows in the world of the gods. > When people discuss the big bang, you often hear > someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'? Well how does one get nothing from something?..you take it away "from". So to get "something from nothing" you add it "to". So it depends on what you do to "add" or take "away", for instance numbers are representative of things, 1,3,5 or 10 means something is there, while zero, -1,-3,-5 or -10 means that something is not there? Anti Matter and Matter are just "two" of the things to come from the Big Bang. Anti Matter is not here, whilst Matter is here. We have to create Anti Matter from Matter, so in this sense we have to get something (matter/ here), from nothing (Anti-Matter/ thats not here). One of the conceptual difficulties for the big-bang, according to Einstein's GR, is that you cannot destroy or create Energy, but you can move it from one place to another(just like moving numbers around in an equation, you get permutations). What is really interesting from this perspective is that you can reduce/reverse?.. the Universe down to a "big-bang" and one finds a Bounce, so the previous Universe is a finite remnant quantity, that translates into this Universe. So just as relativity predicts, there was a little bit left from the "previous" Universe, so there was not actually a "nothing"..there was a finite almost zero/nothing... something? Nature does not destroy previous Universe's, they get recycled into new ones. Time colides with time at some point time overlaps time and something exsist in the same place at the same time. > When people discuss the big bang, you often hear > someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > conrad The big bang says that the observable universe was smaller, hotter and denser in the past. For ideas about "how can something come from nothing?" see: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=541 > > When people discuss the big bang, you often hear > > someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > For ideas about "how can something come from nothing?" see: > http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=541 Ha, ha You're probably reading the above hoping you'll get an idea. You won't. Smaller, hotter, and denser than what? Than what it used to be? Maybe when you were little, your Dad put you against a wall somewhere and made a mark (on the wall). Then a few years later you stood at the same place and- hey!- you were taller than the mark. What mark are you putting today's universe against? Sam, listen, Universe means _everything_. If everything gets bigger YOU CAN'T TELL!!!! THERE IS NOTHING TO COMPARE IT TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We may have to change the name from sci.physics to sci.stupid just for you. John >> The big bang says that the observable universe was smaller, hotter >> and denser in the past. > > Smaller, hotter, and denser than what? > Than what it used to be? > >> The big bang says that the observable universe was smaller, hotter > >> and denser in the past. > > > Smaller, hotter, and denser than what? > > Than what it used to be? I'll bet you are shorter than you used to be. This is because gravity _pushes_ down on your discs in your spinal column, flattening them. It is also because your spinal curvature is becoming more pronounced. This is not due to gravity; it is due to disease processes that our (not my, your) diet is enabling. You're probably not hotter- for the same reasons- chicks like a good posture. But denser- not possible. John > If everything gets bigger YOU CAN'T TELL!!!! > THERE IS NOTHING TO COMPARE IT TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! John, can you tell if this is increasing or decreasing? http://fun.drno.de/flash/hand.swf If so, how? > > > When people discuss the big bang, you often hear > > > someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'? [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > If everything gets bigger YOU CAN'T TELL!!!! > THERE IS NOTHING TO COMPARE IT TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good question. Fortunately, we're not measuring the size of the universe against a past measured size. That is, we're not using a Marks-a-Lot and a vertical piece of wood in the garage, like what your Dad did. Instead, what we're doing is the equivalent of your Dad doing the following: 1. Your Dad takes a reference point (say, your navel) and then measures the *speed* of other landmarks on you away from the navel: your armpits, your knees, your fingertips, your ankles, your eyes, the tops of your ears. He has to have an instrument sensitive to this speed, of course. 2. Your Dad notices that the future the feature away from the navel, the larger the speed of recession. The two are in fact proportional. 3. Your Dad concludes several things from these observations: - that you are expanding uniformly; - that these observations would remain exactly the same if any reference point other than the navel had been chosen; - that these observations in no way imply that the navel is at rest (with respect to anything, really). 4. Furthermore, your Dad can extrapolate from these speed measurements, and assuming a constant rate of growth, the date when you had no size at all. Once more, just to hammer it in, at no time did your Dad have to measure your total size to arrive at any of the concusions above, nor would he have to measure your size at any date in the future. All he needs to know is the present distance to certain landmarks and their speed away from an arbitrary reference point. PD > We may have to change the name from > sci.physics to sci.stupid just for you. > > John- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > 2. Your Dad notices that the future the feature away from the navel, Typo: "future" => "further" > the larger the speed of recession. The two are in fact proportional. If they understood dark energy is photons from outside the visible universe and passed us at c with no wavelength in our time . No two things are at the same place at the same time . Or part of the time ...is time colides with time. No two points in space are at the same time. Time its self becomes a strait line at one end of the time line and a constant univesal rate at the center of the time line . The visible universe You, Dr. Tao, wrote, " If they understood that dark energy is photons from outside the visible universe and passed us at c with no wavelength in our time. ". We can see photons ( from the C.M.B. ) that came from the surface of a 3-D sphere that is, as we speak, 45 Giga_Light_Years away. In the known Universe, 4-D spacetime ( if you can imagine that, I can't ) is expanding all the time, accruing its " 4-D volume ". 4-D space is like the frames of a 3-D movie, it's static, immobile, immutable... it's all there " at once ". So I think you're talking about " infinitely redshifted " photons, here, today, from beyond the birth of the C.M.B., 45 Giga_Light_Years away. Right ? > When people discuss the big bang, you often hear > someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > conrad I think you don;t have the stomach to bear the idea big bang had a date. And that date, the only recollection of perfection fades into impossible as the time itself began on the glorious day. :-)) conrad напиша: > When people discuss the big bang, you often hear > someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > conrad 1 x 1 = 2 x 0.5 = 4 x 0.25 = 8 x 0.125 = ... = All x Nothing it reads: Big Bang is result of collision between All (Yang) and Nothing (Yin). I am part of the universe as much the univarse is part of me! My Natasha is also part of the universe as much the universe is part of her! I am All in Nothing and she is Nothing in All. Our collision, love and sex will give birth of the new universe - OUR SUPERMAN! This may coincide with the doom of planet Earth - Armageddon! > When people discuss the big bang, you often hear > someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to think that such a question exhibits some > misconception. It does. The principle that "something can't come from nothing" is a part of the physical laws of this universe, not something logically prior. Even the idea of "coming from" is peculiar to a universe with time. Believing that the universe must have had a cause is like believing that the Earth can't be spherical because people would fall off the bottom. > I've read that the start of the big bang was due to a > collision(I suppose a collision taking place in a higher > dimension?) and producing this three dimensional > result(our universe). The big bang cosmos that we observe might be part of a larger universe, and might have a cause within that larger universe. People have speculated about various mechanisms, including the one you just mentioned (called the ekpyrotic scenario), but no one really knows anything. -- Ben > When people discuss the big bang, you often hear > someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > conrad That sort of presupposes time existing outside the universe. You might as well ask, if the universe is finite in dimension, then what's on the other side of the edge of it? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.