• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Does anyone have a problem with he Big Bang "Theory"?

Mr. White said:
Space is infinite.
When people talk about the universe expanding, they mean that all the matter in the universe is moving outwards, there is still space beyond this, theres just nothing there.
Space is not expanding


But if space and time are the fabric of the universe, then what you are saying is that there was space before the big bang.

Because no matter can go past the outer fringes of the very beginning of exspansion because none existed at that point, so if there is space beyond this line where matter is and matter isnt, then befire the big bang there was space... and this contradicts what is said about the big bang. Where space and time didnt exist before the bigbang.. Im losing my train
 
i hate how confusing this is haha

think of it this way, if space has a limit then whats outside that?
empty space? a lack of matter?

Really, we're proabably way off. I dont think any of us are nearly as educated we think we are about this. =D
 
hey panic,

i didnt notice that article at first. i recommend you make it a thread article :) it's amazing
 
Mr. White said:
i hate how confusing this is haha

think of it this way, if space has a limit then whats outside that?
empty space? a lack of matter?

Really, we're proabably way off. I dont think any of us are nearly as educated we think we are about this. =D
wiki Lisa Randall or branes, if you're really interested then check out her book Warped Passages. we may live in what is called a multiverse of branes... where each brane houses its own physical laws and rules, and particles are bound to the brane's surface.

gravity would be the weakest force because gravity can interact between branes, it flows out into all of the dimensions in the multiverse, not just stuck to the three or twelve or whatever dimensions our brane has (photons, electrons, nuclei and such are bound to our brane)
 
i don't think we have a clue on whether they can be separated, yet. i would think that the GR maths sorta implie that one w/o the other wouldnt work, but im not sure, as i havent done that math... i only know GR and SR conceptually
 
http://www.livescience.com/space/080930-st-universe-void.html

Do We Live in a Giant Cosmic Bubble?

By Clara Moskowitz, Staff Writer

posted: 30 September 2008 06:48 am ET
Buzz up!
Add to delicious del.icio.us
Digg It! Digg It!
Save to Newsvine Newsvine
Add to reddit reddit
112 Comments | 13 Recommend
This Chandra X-ray photograph shows Cassiopeia A (Cas A, for short), the youngest supernova remnant in the Milky Way. Credit: NASA/CXC/MIT/UMass Amherst/M.D.Stage et al.
Full Size
Previous Image Next Image
1 of 2

This Chandra X-ray photograph shows Cassiopeia A (Cas A, for short), the youngest supernova remnant in the Milky Way. Credit: NASA/CXC/MIT/UMass Amherst/M.D.Stage et al.
Mugshots of some of the two dozen supernova explosions captured by NASA's Swift satellite. Credit: NASA

If the notion of dark energy sounds improbable, get ready for an even more outlandish suggestion.

Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is particularly void of matter. Scientists say this condition could account for the apparent acceleration of the universe's expansion, for which dark energy currently is the leading explanation.

Dark energy is the name given to the hypothetical force that could be drawing all the stuff in the universe outward at an ever-increasing rate. Current thinking is that 74 percent of the universe could be made up of this exotic dark energy, with another 21 percent being dark matter, and normal matter comprising the remaining 5 percent.

Until now, there has been no good way to choose between dark energy or the void explanation, but a new study outlines a potential test of the bubble scenario.

If we were in an unusually sparse area of the universe, then things could look farther away than they really are and there would be no need to rely on dark energy as an explanation for certain astronomical observations.

"If we lived in a very large under-density, then the space-time itself wouldn't be accelerating," said researcher Timothy Clifton of Oxford University in England. "It would just be that the observations, if interpreted in the usual way, would look like they were."

Scientists first detected the acceleration by noting that distant supernovae seemed to be moving away from us faster than they should be. One type of supernova (called Type Ia) is a useful distance indicator, because the explosions always have the same intrinsic brightness. Since light gets dimmer the farther it travels, that means that when the supernovae appear faint to us, they are far away, and when they appear bright, they are closer in.

But if we happened to be in a portion of the universe with less matter in it than normal, then the space-time around us would be different than it is outside, because matter warps space-time. Light travelling from supernovae outside our bubble would appear dimmer, because the light would diverge more than we would expect once it got inside our void.

One problem with the void idea, though, is that it negates a principle that has reined in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn't special. When Nicholas Copernicus argued that it made much more sense for the Earth to be revolving around the sun than vice versa, it revolutionized science. Since then, most theories have to pass the Copernican test. If they require our planet to be unique, or our position to be exalted, the ideas often seem unlikely.

"This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place," Clifton told SPACE.com. "The regular cosmological model is based on the idea that where we live is a typical place in the universe. This would be a contradiction to the Copernican principle."

Clifton, along with Oxford researchers Pedro G. Ferreira and Kate Land, say that in coming years we may be able to distinguish between dark energy and the void. They point to the upcoming Joint Dark Energy Mission, planned by NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy to launch in 2014 or 2015. The satellite aims to measure the expansion of the universe precisely by observing about 2,300 supernovae.

The scientists suggest that by looking at a large number of supernovae in a certain region of the universe, they should be able to tell whether the objects are really accelerating away, or if their light is merely being distorted in a void.

The new study will be detailed in an upcoming issue of the journal Physical Review Letters.
 
qwe said:
i don't think we have a clue on whether they can be separated, yet. i would think that the GR maths sorta implie that one w/o the other wouldnt work, but im not sure, as i havent done that math... i only know GR and SR conceptually


I have to take Modern Physics to get a ACS Certification, does that generally cover the math behind GR and SR or just the concepts?
 
MattPsy said:
Idle observation: It appears some of you are quite stuck with a linear time model. Things don't always have to have a beginning or an end. A circle doesn't, for example, until you assign a point in it arbitrarily.
Indeed.

I have found that this site helps me get my head around things. Kind of. :D (You have to make other extrapolations after viewing it.)
 
that video doesn't represent dimensions as modern physics does

when modern physics talks about extra dimensions, they are extra spatial dimensions. the video is more 'metaphysics' but still interesting to watch

the structure of space time:

it seems to me that it would be a lattice, of n dimensions, with at least one dimension which is different from all the others (the time dimension) and perhaps other different types of dimensions (the folded, perhaps calubai-yubai (sp) dimensions) and three normal dimensions that macroscopic objects can travel through, and some 'background' (inter-brane) dimensions which gravity reaches through

thats four different types of directions to travel in!

1. normal (macroscopic) 3d connections between lattice points
2. time connections between lattice points
3. connections between lattice points along dimensions which are folded (small)
4. connections between lattice points linking brane to non-brane lattice points, allowing gravity and maybe other subatomic particles to escape our brane
 
I agree with what's written below.... There is much that astronomers get wrong. Just about every time technology gets better, and we can visit or see those places that were unseen before, we discover that the scientists had a whole lot wrong. I think, sometimes, that they are just guessing. Now when they consider forces that happened billions of years ago, and millions of light years away, you can assume that a lot of their theories are incorrect!;) A lot is probably ego and career related too.



Mr. White said:
i hate how confusing this is haha

think of it this way, if space has a limit then whats outside that?
empty space? a lack of matter?

Really, we're proabably way off. I dont think any of us are nearly as educated we think we are about this. =D
 
Beenhead said:
I have to take Modern Physics to get a ACS Certification, does that generally cover the math behind GR and SR or just the concepts?
depends on teacher and uni i'd assume. i'm taking the pre-req for modern, so ive yet to take it
 
as far as more knowledge raising more questions... I feel that it is important to understand that the questions don't really matter. The only thing that matters is the accuracy of the predictions we can make based on acquired knowledge.

A simplistic example is that Newton's model for gravity doesn't matter beyond how accurate our predictions are when we apply that model to determine certain things like an object's position at a certain time in its descent towards the earth. If the accuracy is high, the model is pretty much accepted as fact, until somebody can come up with a more accurate model. If somebody can come up with a new model that increases the accuracy of our predictions, it doesn't matter how different it is from the current model that we use.

What I am trying to get at is that the validity of a theory depends on the accuracy of the results that it yields, not on how many new questions arise as a result.
 
Don't waste your time arguing through your own half-formed understandings, friends - just go to the Stephen Hawking site and read what he has come up with:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

additionally Hawking delivers a brilliant lecture at TED.com (a site worth visiting if you are into ideas.) where he claims to have solved the equations that describe how something comes from nothing - a claim not made lightly.

Most of our problems in understanding stem from our status as evolved creatures whose survival needs have not previously included seeing atoms and traveling at relativistic speeds. That and the fact that the best descriptions of reality are mathematical and few people have sufficient math to read it.
 
NoExpert said:
All we have to do is, attach fuses(wicks) to large piles of nothing(which are very cheap, cause there's nothing to them=D ) , then light the fuses, and stand back...
After the explosion, we'll then have lots of hydrogen!
See how simple that was! Thank you, world renowned astronomers!;)

If you can show me some nothing I'll give you everything I own and lick your asshole whenever you want.

Anyway, to the OP...

Science is based on models that are constantly shown to be wrong and new models are developed to explain things again. The big bang is simply a model that attempts to explain something. It doesn't attempt to explain the origins of the big bang itself, only our universe. Lately it's been pretty popular to think that the universe isn't everything. New models are in development that attempt to explain things beyond our universe. When those are developed there will be new questions and new models will be developed.

Unlike religion science doesn't try to explain everything, just as much as it can. The problem in my opinion is you're trying to stretch these models and science into being an explanation of everything when it has never tried to be an explanation of everything.
 
rational_animal said:
Don't waste your time arguing through your own half-formed understandings, friends - just go to the Stephen Hawking site and read what he has come up with:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

additionally Hawking delivers a brilliant lecture at TED.com (a site worth visiting if you are into ideas.) where he claims to have solved the equations that describe how something comes from nothing - a claim not made lightly.

Most of our problems in understanding stem from our status as evolved creatures whose survival needs have not previously included seeing atoms and traveling at relativistic speeds. That and the fact that the best descriptions of reality are mathematical and few people have sufficient math to read it.


Well said.
 
rational_animal said:
Don't waste your time arguing through your own half-formed understandings, friends - just go to the Stephen Hawking site and read what he has come up with:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

additionally Hawking delivers a brilliant lecture at TED.com (a site worth visiting if you are into ideas.) where he claims to have solved the equations that describe how something comes from nothing - a claim not made lightly.

Most of our problems in understanding stem from our status as evolved creatures whose survival needs have not previously included seeing atoms and traveling at relativistic speeds. That and the fact that the best descriptions of reality are mathematical and few people have sufficient math to read it.

An American and two Japanese fellows won the nobel prize for this something from nothing idea - Spontaneous broken symmetry. I'm not sure where hawking fits into the story.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/index.html
 
Top