Cause of the Big Bang

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Leovinus

Guest
<p>I was reading about the folks at CERN and FermiLab with huge accellerators trying to get a big enough smash to see the God Particle. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It made me think that the cause of the big bang was some ancient civilization building one of these machines and actually triggering the BB when the God particle appeared.</p><p>Last word by that ancient scientist:&nbsp; "Whoops" </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
<p>&nbsp;The first words of creation were not, "And let there be light"&nbsp; Instead they were, "What is that light?" </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was reading about the folks at CERN and FermiLab with huge accellerators trying to get a big enough smash to see the God Particle. &nbsp;It made me think that the cause of the big bang was some ancient civilization building one of these machines and actually triggering the BB when the God particle appeared.Last word by that ancient scientist:&nbsp; "Whoops" <br />Posted by Leovinus</DIV><br /><br />Reminds me of how the universe ends in <em>Slaughter House 5</em>. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

weeman

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was reading about the folks at CERN and FermiLab with huge accellerators trying to get a big enough smash to see the God Particle. &nbsp;It made me think that the cause of the big bang was some ancient civilization building one of these machines and actually triggering the BB when the God particle appeared.Last word by that ancient scientist:&nbsp; "Whoops" <br />Posted by Leovinus</DIV><br /><br />It's possible that the folks at CERN might create another universe and not even know it! I've heard from some theoretical physicists that if you could create a universe identical to ours in a laboratory, it would expand into the size of our universe without actually taking up any space in our universe!</p><p>Try to wrap your brain around that one! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif" border="0" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's possible that the folks at CERN might create another universe and not even know it! I've heard from some theoretical physicists that if you could create a universe identical to ours in a laboratory, it would expand into the size of our universe without actually taking up any space in our universe!Try to wrap your brain around that one! <br /> Posted by weeman</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Kind of like "the galaxy in Orion's Belt"? (referring to Men In Black).<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Anyway, I don't know of any sane theorectical physicists that actually believe this.&nbsp; If there are some, could you point them out.&nbsp; I'd be interested in reading how they might come to this conclusion.&nbsp;</p> <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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Kind of like "the galaxy in Orion's Belt"? (referring to Men In Black).&nbsp;Anyway, I don't know of any sane theorectical physicists that actually believe this.&nbsp; If there are some, could you point them out.&nbsp; I'd be interested in reading how they might come to this conclusion.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />Take a look at Hawking book "Black Holes and Baby Universes and other Essays."&nbsp; However, this is more in&nbsp; the realm of speculation than physics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Take a look at Hawking book "Black Holes and Baby Universes and other Essays."&nbsp; However, this is more in&nbsp; the realm of speculation than physics. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Didn't Hawking reverse his stance on baby universes?&nbsp; I'd like to think I'm fairly familiar with gravitational black holes on the macroscopic scale, but their relationship with quantum mechanics is a bit beyond me.&nbsp;</p><p>Anyway, thanks for the reference, but my request was more of a skeptical approach to the statement, <font color="#000000"><em>"I've heard from some theoretical physicists that if you could create a universe <strong>identical to ours</strong> in a laboratory, it would expand into the size of our universe without actually taking up any space in our universe!"</em></font>&nbsp; (<font color="#000000">emphasis mine), made by Weeman in a previous post.</font></p><p>I could be wrong here, but I highly doubt Hawking's description of baby universes via black holes was intended to describe universes that could support life, much less, stars and planets.</p> <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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Didn't Hawking reverse his stance on baby universes?&nbsp; I'd like to think I'm fairly familiar with gravitational black holes on the macroscopic scale, but their relationship with quantum mechanics is a bit beyond me.&nbsp;Anyway, thanks for the reference, but my request was more of a skeptical approach to the statement, "I've heard from some theoretical physicists that if you could create a universe identical to ours in a laboratory, it would expand into the size of our universe without actually taking up any space in our universe!"&nbsp; (emphasis mine), made by Weeman in a previous post.I could be wrong here, but I highly doubt Hawking's description of baby universes via black holes was intended to describe universes that could support life, much less, stars and planets. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure whether or not Hawking reversed his stance on baby universes or whetheer in fact he ever really took a stance at all.&nbsp; He has certainly changed his thoughts on a number of topics.&nbsp; What I got out of his essay was a speculation on a mechanism involving the evaporation of black holes via so-called Hawking radiation and a further speculation on other universes.&nbsp; In any case he raised the possibility of something containing matter, potentially quite a bit of matter in the case of a massive black hole, with that something being cut off from our universe.&nbsp; Now, whether or not that universe could support life, stars, planets etc. I would think is open to debate.&nbsp; It seems to me that all that is needed in principle is sufficient mass/energy. Given the potential size of black holes, I think one might make an argument that there could be enough.&nbsp; In any case this stuff is pure speculation.&nbsp; The real point is that the universe, by definition, is all that we have to work with and any separate universe is indeed completely separate and non-interacting with our own universe.&nbsp; If it interacts with our universe, then it is a part of it.&nbsp; Lacking interaction, the question of the existence of a separate universe is a rather moot question.&nbsp; If it were to exist in any sense of course it&nbsp;would up no space in our universe, since if it did it would be a part of our universe and not some other universe.&nbsp; As to whether or not it would be "the size of our", I do not see how one can even formulate such a question since one could not take a yardstick from our universe into another one.&nbsp; Size measurements in a universe are meaninful only within that universe -- as are other physical questions.</p><p>This is starting to get into philosophy and metaphysics with the regard to the question of what it means for something to exist.&nbsp; Let philosophers debate that one, along with the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.&nbsp; I don't remembe who said this, but the quote remains valid: " There is no position so silly that some philosopher has not taken it."</p><p>This sort of stuff is really out on the fringe and, while great fun to think about, is not&nbsp;settled science, if it is science at all.&nbsp; We don't have a theory of quantum gravity, and therefore we don't know how to&nbsp;analyze phenomena that depend in a serious way on both general relativity and quantum theory.&nbsp; There are real, serious questions to be answered that we just don't have the tools to address.&nbsp; Even in areas that some consider to be settled there are difficulties.&nbsp; For instance, for purposes of calculation, quantum electrodynamics is a great success.&nbsp; That success, however, depends on a step in the calculation called "renormalization".&nbsp; The renormalization procedure involves performing a perturbation calculation and then discarding some of the terms.&nbsp; Once those terms have been discarded the results have proven to be astoundingly close to experimental measurements.&nbsp; On the surface this is really great, and the physicists love it.&nbsp; The kicker, however, is that the terms that are discarded are INFINITE, and no one has been able to provide a rigorous mathematical treatment of the renormalization process -- or even to clearly define it in mathematical terms.</p><p>While physicists are generally comfortable (I think too comfortable) with the ad hoc procedure of renormalization, a great deal remains to be understood.&nbsp; </p><p>"There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity.&nbsp; I do not believe that there ever was such a time.&nbsp; There might have been a time when only one man did, before he wrote his paper.&nbsp; But after people read the paper, a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve.&nbsp; On the other hand, I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."&nbsp; -- Richard Feynman in The Character of Physical Law.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

weeman

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Kind of like "the galaxy in Orion's Belt"? (referring to Men In Black).&nbsp;Anyway, I don't know of any sane theorectical physicists that actually believe this.&nbsp; If there are some, could you point them out.&nbsp; I'd be interested in reading how they might come to this conclusion.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />I never said they were sane! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
 
A

astralith

Guest
<p>
you could create a universe identical to ours in a laboratory, it would expand into the size of our universe without actually taking up any space in our universe!
</p><p>But would it reduce the energy driving the universes expansion, like a bubble budding a bubble and having to share the infaling air? Imagine about a decade after doing that Hubble detects the nearest stars having slowed down and started falling toward us and we toward the galactic core!</p>
 
S

schmack

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was reading about the folks at CERN and FermiLab with huge accellerators trying to get a big enough smash to see the God Particle. &nbsp;It made me think that the cause of the big bang was some ancient civilization building one of these machines and actually triggering the BB when the God particle appeared.Last word by that ancient scientist:&nbsp; "Whoops" <br />Posted by Leovinus</DIV><br /></p><p>"Cause of the Big Bang?" </p><p>ooh! Pardon.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4" color="#ff0000"><font size="2">Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups</font> </font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ff0000">Gimme some Schmack Schmack!</font></p> </div>
 
S

siriusdogstarone

Guest
<p>Well if there is&nbsp; another universe&nbsp; out there opposite our universe wouldn't make sense&nbsp; that&nbsp; our universe is</p><p>from a black hole universe that was spit out after the big bang explosion . Our universe is just a mirror of&nbsp; another</p><p>larger unverse that spit us out&nbsp; , after a great cosmic collision&nbsp; that happened umpteen billion years ago.</p><p>Our&nbsp; universe&nbsp;&nbsp; is a mirror&nbsp; of a much larger macrocosm .&nbsp; Like for example : A Brane&nbsp; is a hole opened let's</p><p>say like a black hole&nbsp; that has two ends&nbsp; that sucks up planets and stars . Sort of along the lines of&nbsp; a wormhole</p><p>but&nbsp; it spits out the planets&nbsp; and stars&nbsp; , after a breach in the&nbsp; black hole ; a big bang explosion.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif" border="0" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#339966">E To The Square</font> </div>
 
S

siriusdogstarone

Guest
<p><font size="3" color="#0000ff">That would mean&nbsp; that the black hole&nbsp; had imploded&nbsp; and exploded sending</font></p><p><font size="3" color="#0000ff">whole&nbsp; planets&nbsp; and galaxies back into the universe . It's a cycle repeated </font></p><p><font size="3" color="#0000ff">over again in&nbsp; the macrocosmic universe or&nbsp; multiple universe .&nbsp; A black hole</font></p><p><font size="3" color="#0000ff">there by forming&nbsp;&nbsp; a&nbsp;&nbsp; Brane composed&nbsp; of&nbsp; opposite ends&nbsp; absorbing everything</font></p><p><font size="3" color="#0000ff">in it's path swallowing whole planets etc. That contracts and explodes outwardly.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#339966">E To The Square</font> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me at all.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
W

weeman

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That would mean&nbsp; that the black hole&nbsp; had imploded&nbsp; and exploded sendingwhole&nbsp; planets&nbsp; and galaxies back into the universe . It's a cycle repeated over again in&nbsp; the macrocosmic universe or&nbsp; multiple universe .&nbsp; A black holethere by forming&nbsp;&nbsp; a&nbsp;&nbsp; Brane composed&nbsp; of&nbsp; opposite ends&nbsp; absorbing everythingin it's path swallowing whole planets etc. That contracts and explodes outwardly. <br />Posted by siriusdogstarone</DIV><br /><br />I'd suggest drinking more decaf. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me at all. <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>And that is a good thing.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

dabiznuss

Guest
<p>Hey here is an idea!!!!!</p><p>Objects cannot send out signals any faster than the planck time or they become black-hole. Galaxies become spatially isolated loosing gravitational potential energy between each other and in effect their mass and energy therefore increase, and since they are spatially isolated gravity is conserved adding to the effects. Owing to my prior discussion of a universal time clock all of these spatially isolated clusters of galaxies or galaxies themselves all than give rise to a singularity such as the big bang!!!!!!!!! yet millions of them or how many ever galaxy clusters are out there. a cycle effect forever! just b/c their was a beginning & end to ourlives doesn't mean that everything works that way, that's a humanistic idea that needs to die and die quick.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

R1

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#003366">Hey here is an idea!!!!!Objects cannot send out signals any faster than the planck time or they become black-hole. Galaxies become spatially isolated loosing gravitational potential energy between each other and in effect their mass and energy therefore increase, and since they are spatially isolated gravity is conserved adding to the effects. Owing to my prior discussion of a universal time clock all of these spatially isolated clusters of galaxies or galaxies themselves all than give rise to a singularity such as the big bang!!!!!!!!! yet millions of them or how many ever galaxy clusters are out there. a cycle effect forever! just b/c their was a beginning & end to ourlives doesn't mean that everything works that way, that's a humanistic idea that needs to die and die quick.</font> <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">What do you mean.&nbsp; A black hole in each galaxy?&nbsp;&nbsp; It is thought that many galaxies may have a black hole at their centers.</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hey here is an idea!!!!!Objects cannot send out signals any faster than the planck time or they become black-hole. Galaxies become spatially isolated loosing gravitational potential energy between each other and in effect their mass and energy therefore increase, and since they are spatially isolated gravity is conserved adding to the effects. Owing to my prior discussion of a universal time clock all of these spatially isolated clusters of galaxies or galaxies themselves all than give rise to a singularity such as the big bang!!!!!!!!! yet millions of them or how many ever galaxy clusters are out there. a cycle effect forever! just b/c their was a beginning & end to ourlives doesn't mean that everything works that way, that's a humanistic idea that needs to die and die quick. <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>That does not make sense.</p><p>Signal rates are in units like bits/second.&nbsp;&nbsp; Planck time is units of seconds.&nbsp; Planck time is nothing except a very small interval of time that some physicists think might be relevant to something -- but no one is quite sure what that something is.</p><p>Signals in principle have no particular mass and really no mass at all in the abstract.&nbsp; A black hole requires a very high mass density.&nbsp; So there would need to be some relationship between the mass density of an object sending our signals and the rate at which the signals are sent out for idea to make any sense.&nbsp; There is no such relationship.&nbsp; Not even in principle.</p><p>How do galaxies become gravitationally isolated.&nbsp; As they move farther and farther apart the potential energy due to gravity <strong>increases</strong> just as potential energy of an object near the surface of the Earth increases when you lift it.</p><p>There is no universal time clock, and your previous discussion resolved nothing.</p><p>There is no mechanism whereby spataially and graviationally isolated galaxies give rise to any singularity, let alone anything remotely like the Big Bang, or result in any periodic behavior.</p><p>Have you been drinking ?&nbsp; Smoking ?&nbsp; What ?&nbsp;&nbsp; Sounds like recreation.&nbsp; Doesn't sound like physics. </p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

amaterasu

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was reading about the folks at CERN and FermiLab with huge accellerators trying to get a big enough smash to see the God Particle. &nbsp;It made me think that the cause of the big bang was some ancient civilization building one of these machines and actually triggering the BB when the God particle appeared.Last word by that ancient scientist:&nbsp; "Whoops" <br />Posted by Leovinus</DIV></p><p>;-)&nbsp; i'd tend to fall for that romantic version myself&nbsp;but my nuclear physicist friend (and from what i've read in some journals) seem to reckon that&nbsp;the 'vacuum phase-transition' theory would be more logical.</p><p>either way, it is absolutely beyond me to imagine how mass and&nbsp;non-mass&nbsp;substances&nbsp;have come to co-exist in this 'colour superconductivity' universe - whatever that actually means.<br />although physicists seem to have been thinking, the fact that in the superconducting state magnetic field lines (i.e. electromagnetic waves) can only run a short distance could be applied to our universe as a whole.<br />meaning, if&nbsp;some quark would indeed be slowed down&nbsp;in the&nbsp;universe filled with quark-antiquark pairs&nbsp;and&nbsp;Higgs bosons,&nbsp;such quark should be considered to gain mass.</p><p>mind-boggling indeed.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts