Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[Floridian]

Ultimately no one knows what the Space/Time continuum really is; which ultimately makes me feel justified believing in a creator of this universe...

Does that mean if we come up with a good definition of space-time you will become an atheist?

Theres really no such thing as an atheist, only agnostics, as atheism cannot explain the beginning of the universe, and a number of other things.

 

[drwayne]

"Theres really no such thing as an atheist, only agnostics, as atheism cannot explain the beginning of the universe, and a number of other things."

Uhhh, no, explanatory power is in no way involved in the definition of an atheist. It simply refers to someone who
does not believe in a deity. An agnostic on the other hand has basically not made a judgement on the existence of
a deity.

 

[csmyth3025]

G'day

There is a general statement that there is no known mechanism that allows for recycling.


...Nature provides for cyclic processes or else we would end up dead.

Hi Harry,

I apologize for my belated response to this portion of your post. I agree with you that nature provides for cyclic processes. On the other hand, I know of no living thing that doesn't end up dead.

To be sure, my mouldering carcass will be an integral part of nature's cyclic processes. It will provide nourishment to the worms and bateria which, in turn, will provide nutrients to whatever plants take root in the soil above me (cremation short-circuits this process somewhat, but the end results are the same). These plants will be consumed by a myriad of fauna - perhaps directly or indirectly by a future generation of human being. In this way some of the chemicals in me may become part of another person.

As comforting as this thought is, I will still be very very dead.

Chris

 

[vladdrac]

What if you could keep a 'bio mechanical' spare of yourself. Would you object to using this 'spare' if the 'original' was damaged beyond repair?.

G'day

There is a general statement that there is no known mechanism that allows for recycling.


...Nature provides for cyclic processes or else we would end up dead.

Hi Harry,

I apologize for my belated response to this portion of your post. I agree with you that nature provides for cyclic processes. On the other hand, I know of no living thing that doesn't end up dead.

To be sure, my mouldering carcass will be an integral part of nature's cyclic processes. It will provide nourishment to the worms and bateria which, in turn, will provide nutrients to whatever plants take root in the soil above me (cremation short-circuits this process somewhat, but the end results are the same). These plants will be consumed by a myriad of fauna - perhaps directly or indirectly by a future generation of human being. In this way some of the chemicals in me may become part of another person.

As comforting as this thought is, I will still be very very dead.

Chris

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

Sorry I have been away, fishing.

Matter cannot come from nothing
Nothing cannot create matter.

Matter cannot die, matter is able to change phases and the nuclear phase is the most prominent.

As I read through papers I find I'm starting to learn a bit of a bit of the universe and how the parts work.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0570
Nuclear matter at high density: Phase transitions, multiquark states, and supernova outbursts

Authors: M. I. Krivoruchenko, D. K. Nadyozhin, T. L. Rasinkova, Yu. A. Simonov, M. A. Trusov, A. V. Yudin
(Submitted on 3 Jun 2010)

Abstract: Phase transition from hadronic matter to quark-gluon matter is discussed for various regimes of temperature and baryon number density. For small and medium densities, the phase transition is accurately described in the framework of the Field Correlation Method, whereas at high density predictions are less certain and leave room for the phenomenological models. We study formation of multiquark states (MQS) at zero temperature and high density. Relevant MQS components of the nuclear matter can be described using a previously developed formalism of the quark compound bags (QCB).
Partial-wave analysis of nucleon-nucleon scattering indicates the existence of 6QS which manifest themselves as poles of $P$-matrix. In the framework of the QCB model, we formulate a self-consistent system of coupled equations for the nucleon and 6QS propagators in nuclear matter and the G-matrix. The approach provides a link between high-density nuclear matter with the MQS components and the cumulative effect observed in reactions on the nuclei, which requires the admixture of MQS in the wave functions of nuclei kinematically.
6QS determine the natural scale of the density for a possible phase transition into the MQS phase of nuclear matter. Such a phase transition can lead to dynamic instability of newly born protoneutron stars and dramatically affect the dynamics of supernovae. Numerical simulations show that the phase transition may be a good remedy for the triggering supernova explosions in the spherically symmetric supernova models. A specific signature of the phase transition is an additional neutrino peak in the neutrino light curve. For a Galactic core-collapse supernova, such a peak could be resolved by the present neutrino detectors. The possibility of extracting the parameters of the phase of transition from observation of the neutrino signal is discussed also.

The phases that I consistently refer to are part of mainstream thinking. S Hawking is using this information to unify the origins of the universe as I just whatched one of his programs. Once normal matter transits to nuclear matter it has the quantum memory to reform normal matter once ejected from the compact core and thus a cycle event occurs.

 

[csmyth3025]

G'day

Sorry I have been away, fishing.

Matter cannot come from nothing
Nothing cannot create matter.

Matter cannot die, matter is able to change phases and the nuclear phase is the most prominent.

Harry,

You've restated the widely accepted Law of Conservation of matter/energy. I'm hoping you can explain how you feel matter is recycled back into our universe from a singularity. The links you provide don't shed any light on this.

Chris

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

To begin with Black Holes, Event Horizon and singularity are but a theory and no a fact.

I want to know how reality plays the part.

So I keep on reading and reading.

I was asked to read up on Vector Field Theory by a prof.

I came across this link. To shine a light on recycling one needs to know what happens to normal matter as it transits within a dense core and what happens to it once ejected and how quatum memeory comes to life. These points are well documented and not my ideas.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0703294
Dynamics with Vector Condensates at Finite Density in QCD and Beyond

Authors: V.A. Miransky
(Submitted on 28 Mar 2007 (v1), last revised 7 Nov 2007 (this version, v2))

Abstract: I describe the dynamics in recently revealed phases with vector condensates of gauge fields in dense QCD (gluonic phase) and other gauge models. In this case, the Higgs mechanism is provided by condensates of gauge (or gauge plus scalar) fields. Because most of the initial symmetries in such systems are spontaneously broken, their dynamics is very rich. In particular, by using the Ginzburg-Landau approach, the existence of a gluonic phase with both the rotational symmetry and the electromagnetic U(1) being spontaneously broken was established. In other words, this phase describes an anisotropic superconductor. In the dual (confinement) description of this dynamics in dense two-flavor QCD, there are light exotic vector hadrons in the spectrum, some of which condense. There are also vortex-like and roton-like excitations in these phases.

There are some terms that may need explaining either let me know or look up wiki.

 

[SpeedFreek]

G'day

To begin with Black Holes, Event Horizon and singularity are but a theory and no a fact.

I will ask this again. What exactly is that super-massive but invisible object at the centre of our galaxy in Sag A*, that the visible stars in that region have been observed to be orbiting? Those stars orbits tell us that the object has a mass of around 4 million solar masses.

I came across this link. To shine a light on recycling one needs to know what happens to normal matter as it transits within a dense core and what happens to it once ejected and how quatum memeory comes to life. These points are well documented and not my ideas.

I just read through the paper. The well documented points in that paper (which are not your ideas) do not seem to have any relevance to a recycling universe, which is your idea. Could you please quote the section in that paper that is relevant to your idea of a recycling universe?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yes, please do harrycostas.

Your repeated posting of links unrelated to the subject of discussion , and your steadfast refusal to explain how they are related when asked have reached a critical level.

Fair warning....

Moderator Meteor Wayne

 

[chrissta]

Ultimately no one knows what the Space/Time continuum really is; which ultimately makes me feel justified believing in a creator of this universe...

Does that mean if we come up with a good definition of space-time you will become an atheist?

Theres really no such thing as an atheist, only agnostics, as atheism cannot explain the beginning of the universe, and a number of other things.

Hi I'm new to the forum area of the site and never posted before. A lot of the posts here are over my head, but I have a passion for the cosmos and space, and I love this site. I just wanted to say that I saw this episode on Science Channel or maybe Nat Geo regarding the big bang theory and dimensions. In the program, the big bang theory seemed like it was crushed because what they thought they could explain about matter and electrons has changed? ... and in order to explain the beginning of the universe you have to explain the smallest matter which from what I followed, they couldn't. Maybe I am mistaken because like I said, some of it is over my head. I follow the best I can. Basically after an hour of debates about possible 11th and 12th dimensions, I was beginning to feel justified in belief of a greater power. I look for reasons and explanations for everything like scientists do but sometimes I get a feeling like our origin is meant by the creator to be a mystery. Anyway, that's my little piece. Peace.

 

[csmyth3025]

Hi I'm new to the forum area of the site and never posted before. A lot of the posts here are over my head, but I have a passion for the cosmos and space, and I love this site. I just wanted to say that I saw this episode on Science Channel or maybe Nat Geo regarding the big bang theory and dimensions. In the program, the big bang theory seemed like it was crushed because what they thought they could explain about matter and electrons has changed? ... and in order to explain the beginning of the universe you have to explain the smallest matter which from what I followed, they couldn't...

Hi Chrissta, Welcome to Space Forums

I'm not aware of any crisis in explaining the formation of matter and electrons using the Big Bang theory. Like you, I'm a layman who has an interest in space and science, but my knowledge is limited to what I'm able to read and understand (I have a high school education).

A very good source of general and more advanced information that's (mostly) understandable to the layman is Wikipedia. Their article on the Big Bang can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

On the right hand side of the page there's a window that provides links to numerous subjects related to the Universe. If you click "show" on the "Early Universe" subject line, a series of underlying subjects will drop down. If you click on "nucleosynthesis" in this list, it will take you to this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

As far as I know, this article describes the most widely accepted view of how matter formed in the first few minutes of the Big Bang.

One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that their articles contain lots of links (blue text) to other articles on things that they mention. Sometimes these links are very advanced (which means I don't have a clue about what they're saying), but most of the time the articles are on the level of an ordinary encyclopedia entry.

Chris

 

[chrissta]

I found out what show it was, "Through the Wormhole" on the Science Channel. They usually play these shows over again, so maybe I will record it next time. They know that the big bang happened but they don't know what brought it on. The cosmologists talked of a "cyclic universe" and the "M theory" , that the big bang was the result of colliding universes and that we aren't the only universe. They talked about 11 dimensions of space and time. Even though I am an average person like yourself with only high school and a little bit of college education, I could not help while watching, that this theory of parallel universes seemed hard to believe. And of course there is no proof. And so that's when I felt justified in my religious beliefs.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Welcome to SDC!

I found out what show it was, "Through the Wormhole" on the Science Channel. They usually play these shows over again, so maybe I will record it next time. They know that the big bang happened but they don't know what brought it on. The cosmologists talked of a "cyclic universe" and the "M theory"

A cyclic universe would be the idea of there being a stage when, instead of continuing to expand, the Universe contracts in upon itself due to gravity overriding expansion and the process of a "Big Crunch" begins. This will be followed by a "Big Bang" and the whole thing starts all over again, ad infinitum.

"M Theory" is essentially a form of what is called "String Theory." (M Theory tries to bring together all of the various string theories.) The idea is that the fundamental particles of the universe are like small vibrating strings. (Different types of loops that appear to become more complex and varied the more intensely they are examined from our perspective.) Except, they reside in multiple dimensions so small and twisted that we really can't easily detect them. As I understand it, it is offered to counter the idea that there are "point particles" in classic quantum physics where a fundamental particle is an absolute "point" that has no dimension or shape. In string theory, the particles have something "like" dimensions of length, width, etc that is expressed within multiple dimensions or "branes." Strings also "vibrate" through these different branes. The idea is sort of like looking down at a piece of vertical string from a top view. What we see from that perspective is just a seemingly dimensionless point. But, in string theory, it's really a string stretching through dimensions we can not easily see. If we were to alter our perspective, we could see the string as it really exists. But, because we are limited to certain forms of observation in this Universe, it first appears as a sort of simple point. (Just an illustration to get the point across.)

, that the big bang was the result of colliding universes and that we aren't the only universe.

That would be an "Ekpyrotic Theory" or the idea that multiple dimensions (branes) came together to form ours and the resulting Laws that govern our existence.

They talked about 11 dimensions of space and time.

String theory/M theory is based on, at its lowest number, 11 dimensions. Thinking in 11 dimensions isn't easy. It's really only possible to grasp in mathematics so, I'm similarly handicapped. One way to think about it, I suppose, is to think of some other attribute.. say a particular flavor, color or tone that could be associated at any one time with a bit of quantum, fundamental string. So, a quantum string has "xx attributes" in 3 dimensional space, time and flavor, color, tone, weight, albedo, political affiliation and whether or not it enjoys watching reruns of Star Trek. ) But, none of which can be easily observed from our Universe except the three primary physical dimensions and possibly time. Mathematically, however, strings can be more fully realized if one recognizes the significance of the maths, which I can't do.

Even though I am an average person like yourself with only high school and a little bit of college education, I could not help while watching, that this theory of parallel universes seemed hard to believe.

*Parallel Universes come from the idea of "Multiverse Theory." In essence, everything that has ever happened and could possibly ever happen has happened either in this or another Universe. Also, there exists dimensions or Universes where the laws are different. If multiple branes can "collide" to form our Universe that means they can form others.

It's really not a difficult idea to grasp when you think about it. For instance, if we live in an infinite Universe then, by definition, there is a positive probability that somewhere within our Universe an event labeled "X" has occurred. Somewhere else in our infinite Universe exists another being named chrissta who has posted on a website forum called Space.com and who has remarked upon their experience while watching a television show. But, the only difference is that person has plaid colored skin, rides a giant lizard to work and exists entirely upon deriving sustenance from strawberry flavored Skittles.

Take that one step further except make everything "local." In that situation, everything that can occur has occurred except within other "multiverses" which sort of break off from ours as the event occurs. (The "Many Worlds" idea of mulitiple histories.) A photon, for instance, appears to travel every single possible path from its origin to its destination. However, not until it is observed does it appear that its history in our Universe is realized. But, all the other possible histories still exist.

And of course there is no proof. And so that's when I felt justified in my religious beliefs.

Well, as far as there not being proof, that remains to be seen. CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has enough energy to uncover suspected phenomenon that would validate some of String Theory's ideas. If detected, some of those particles would have no other possible logical source than what is predicted by String Theory.

Personally, I don't place much emphasis on Science justifying my own religious beliefs. After all, it's pretty commonplace for Science to be wrong. Or, more appropriately - Incomplete. But, if String Theory/M-Theory is proven right, we will have a way to create a "Theory of Everything" which could revolutionize Science and open up new vistas.

Welcome to SDC!

* See post below on Cosmological Multiverses. Sorry about the goof up.

(Note: Any of the "Initiated" into the realm of quantum physics/cosmology is encouraged and welcomed to correct my illustrations of the principles discussed if I've constructed them so they're misleading or demonstrate sufficient misunderstanding of the subject. )

 

[chrissta]

lol Well I may have not grasped everything on the show or what you said but I try so hard to. One thing I can say for myself is I have a very open mind. So if I say something is hard to believe, I haven't written it off completely. It's just weird, you know what I mean? I love Star Trek and Mission to Mars is my favorite film, well, next to Lord of the Rings of course. Thank you

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...Thank you

You're welcome.

On thing I didn't address very well was "Multiverse Theory" in regards to cosmology. I was sort of distracted and going off on a Many Worlds/Many Histories kind of thing.

Basically, for a cosmological Multiverse perspective, this is a decent explanation:

Multiverse Theory[/url]":6zvcm8yb]

"...The Multiverse theory for the universe has been a recently accepted theory that describes the continuous formation of universes through the collapse of giant stars and the formation of black holes. With each of these black holes there is a new point of singularity and a new possible universe. As Rees describes it, "Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes." (Rees 3) This puts our place in the Multiverse into a small spectrum. While the size of the earth in relation to the sun is minuscule, the size of the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, and even the universe, could pale in comparison to this proposed Multiverse. It would be a shift in thinking that may help explain our big bang theory and possibly give light to the idea of parallel universes...."

I don't know why I went off on multiple histories and such. Oh well, I'll leave it and simply note a correction.

Having an open mind is a great thing as long as you are careful about what you let fall into it. I think, in general, scientists and researchers have very open minds but, only in as much as they rigorously guard what they let inside them. A strict observance of certain rules is necessary to make having an open mind truly beneficial rather than hazardous.

 

[chrissta]

Right. And there's those who say they have an open mind, like to believe they do, but end up being so narrow/close minded but then that is probably why they do not recognize it in themselves.