Can there be a miniature big bang?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

newtonian

Guest
Is there some postulated cause for the big bang that could also cause a miniature big bang?<br /><br />Can there be a miniature inflation effect - i.e. faster than light expansion due to some cause on a small scale?<br /><br />Crucial to this is understanding the cause of the big bang and the cause of inflation.<br /><br />Feel free, therefore, to also post the cause of either - but I really want to know because if we could cause a miniature big bang or inflation event it could be a fantastic energy source!<br /><br />Or - perish the thought!
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
Is there some postulated cause for the big bang that could also cause a miniature big bang? <br /><br />I don't know what the cause for the Big Bang or mini bangs are, but the mini bangs are going on all the time in most galaxies. The Mini-Bangs are simply the Quasars that are ejected by the parent galaxies (according to Halton Arp). These plasma ejections eventually become galaxies themselves. The Universe is more complex (and messy) than the single event Big Bang. That's why the Big Bang Theory doesn't account for the walls of galaxies that have clumped together. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
kyle_baron - Quasars as mini-bangs - that's not what I meant - and I never heard that model before - clearly not the standard model.<br /><br />Do you have a link for more information on this variant model?
 
T

thespeculator

Guest
That would be cool if there was a way to produce a mini-bang... The way I see it, in order for the universe (and energy for that matter) to exist there has to be a way to make 0=1... And there is, 0 = 1 + (-1), So that means that in order for one universe to exist there has to be something equal and opposite to it to balance out the equation. This is not to say that there are only two universes as 0 = 1 + (-1) + 1 + (-1) also. This doesn't even say that there is even two universes for that matter either because how can we tell what the opposite of a universe is?<br /><br /><br />I think it is possible because, well, read my sig. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
D

dragon04

Guest
I could comment on a mini big bang, but it would have to be down on Phenomena. I'll leave you with a teaser. How dense would the gravitational effects of a singularity need to be to rupture the fabric (membrane) of space time?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
TheSpeculatior - Well, my belief is that our universe was created in harmony with the law of conservation of matter and energy - by input of energy from God - compare Isaiah 40:26 where the existence of stars is linked to plural forms of God's dynamic energy and power.<br /><br />In other words, I do not believe our universe was created from nothing but rather from energy - some of which was converted into other forms of energy and matter (and antimatter).<br /><br />In actual scientific observation, 1 + (-1) does not equal zero if 1 is matter, and -1 is antimatter.<br /><br />Do you have some other 1, -1 in mind?<br /><br />to compare, consider the laws of motion. It is true that opposite motions will cancel out to produce zero motion. However, opposite motions do not initiate on their own but require energy input.<br /><br />Of course, I do not claim to fully understand the appearance and disappearance of 'virtual' particles - but most scientists agree [not that this proves the matter] that the law of conservation of matter and energy, and causality, are not violated. <br /><br />This is all tangents from my question, btw.<br /><br />My question deals with the cause for the big bang and whether this cause can operate with a much smaller amount of matter and energy - or, alternately, if a very massive amount of matter and energy are required????<br /><br />Simply - are there some math limits for a big bang to occur? If so, what are they and why?
 
T

thespeculator

Guest
<font color="orange">"Do you have some other 1, -1 in mind?"</font><br /><br />Yes I did actually. We have not yet discovered what the opposite of the universe is. Antimatter can't be the oppsite because when combined with matter it creates a huge amount of energy when both atoms destroy eachother. I believe you're right about the building block of the universe being energy, and matter being well, I guess I could say, energy deposites. Antimatter is just an anomolous form of matter and not the opposite of matter. Who knows, maybe the great attractor is the opposite of the universe. Yet we can't see it because our light cancels out with something from it creating a zero effect; we don't see it yet we're attracted to it.<br /><br />I think the universe was created gradually, not in some huge explosion like the big bang. Sure evidense from the big bang is all that we see but how do we know that there isn't other singularities out there the size of the one that the big bang came from. We can't see that far. Not to mention the fact that they're probably not radiating anything out for us to look at.<br /><br />I believe that the cause of the big bang was a singularity hitting 'critical mass' and then at that time all of the atoms composing it were all crushed by its extreme gravitational pull and converted to energy. Since energy doesn't have gravity it was set free in a massive explosion, then atoms started to reform, and gasses started to form, and after that dust formed, then rocks, and so on. I do not however believe that this created energy or matter. I believe that the energy and matter was all in that singularity to begin with and that singularity came from an extremely gradual process of energy and the opposite of energy (whatever that may be) appearing out of nowhere at the same time. Then all of that did like the big bang and created matter from energy but over a much longer period of time.<br /><br />So to answer your question an atomic bomb is what I woul
 
P

plutocrass

Guest
Great post about little bangs, that really sounds like a good idea. We can't exist for very long stretches of time without a little bang now and again.<br /><br />As for the big bang. I think if the matter was to collapse, and the bang was to rebang, we'd all be here doing the same thing again in the same way. I think the history of the universe, including our thoughts and behaviors are as predictable as knowing the path that a rocket takes to get to mars once its launched, only more complex. You just can't escape living over and over again in exactly the same manner as you did in the previous big bang.
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
"You just can't escape living over and over again in exactly the same manner as you did in the previous big bang."<br /><br />So, i really had no choice but to type this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
P

plutocrass

Guest
"...i really had no choice but to type this."<br /><br />Hey, I like it better than the last time I saw it!
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
kyle_baron - Quasars as mini-bangs - that's not what I meant - and I never heard that model before - clearly not the standard model. <br /><br />Do you have a link for more information on this variant model? <br /><br />Sure, see this link for explaining parent galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and quasar ejections:<br />http://www.haltonarp.com/Articles/PDF/moriond.pdf<br /><br />Also, see:<br />http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=10<br />Under 2 Redshift is the key. Fig.2 shows companion galaxies, with z representing redshift, along with multiple galaxies which are BL LAC galaxies.<br /><br />Also, see this link:<br />http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#top<br />Which explains why BB Theory can not account for the galaxy walls and voids. See #4 <br />These Parent Galaxies, Companion Galaxies, and Clusters of Galaxies form the walls, which BB Theory can't explain. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
TheSpeculator - I agree with some of that but lack the time at the moment to respond. One point stands out to me - you posted:<br /><br />"I believe that the cause of the big bang was a singularity hitting 'critical mass'."<br /><br />What might that critical mass be? Could such a critical mass be reached in a smaller volume? <br /><br />A very interesting possibility worthy of exploring!
 
N

newtonian

Guest
kyle_baron - Thank you for those outside the box links. I hope to read them later.<br /><br />On the latter link I like #2 - but need to research it further. On #4, I consider structure (walls, bubbles, voids, etc.) to be evidence of Intelligent Design - but that is a tangent from thread theme!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts