Question about Big Bang

[search]

The old problem of "notion of nothing"<br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

 

[newtonian]

bdewoody - speedfreak was essentially summing up the standard, or most popular, model.<br /><br />However, there are certainly opposite directions on the fabric of space even if the fabric of space has no center.<br /><br />And I do not assume the standard model about no center is correct.<br /><br />Be that as it may (I can post an alternate model if you would like), there are certainly points on the fabric of space from which various galaxies are expanding in opposite directions.<br /><br />Also, note that actual observations (not theoretic models) show our universe is stretching out like a fine gauze in all 3 dimensions. <br /><br />As you no doubt realize, opposite directions are also possible in 2-d, not just 3-d. I think this is also possible in 1-d. Not so sure about zero-d (a singularity).<br /><br />Adding time does not add to opposite directions, btw, because time's arrow is one way only (forward).<br /><br />Note also that our visibility horizon, aka light cone, is indeed a 3-d limit such that all matter moving beyond our visibility horizon is not observable from our reference point.<br /><br />BTW - our universe was not created from nothing but rather in harmony with the law of conservation of matter and energy.<br />

 

[alokmohan]

BTW - our universe was not created from nothing but rather in harmony with the law of conservation of matter and energy. <br />Sorry.How these laws come before big bang?

 

[colinandjohn]

In a link from SPACE.COM a few days back, there was a photo by the Hubble ultra deep field camera that showed a number of "red" galaxies. However, my first glance and repeated examination (as a complete idiot and uneducated in science), I noticed circular patterns within the picture. Am I imagining the pattern? If not, does this indicate something? If so, what? I realize not all galaxies are the same size and mass and so everything is not speeding off in exactly the a perfect angle from everything else at the same speed, but it was just something I thought was all over the photo and necessary to mention. Thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Imagining the pattern would be the wrong way to charachterize it. Recognizing a pattern would be more correct. The human brain is wired to recognize patterns. For example, most constellations throughout history involve the same collections of stars, even though they were given different names or creatures depending on the culture.<br /><br />Whether the perceived pattern means anything is another matter entirely. This deep field probably has not been analyzed enough to answer that.<br /><br />One galaxy shape pattern that does mean something is what are called gravitational lenses, where galaxy clusters in between the distant galaxy and us bend the light causing stretched and or multiple images of the distant object. I don't see any evidence of that in this image, though.<br /><br />Welcome to SDC, nice early question! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

well...what were the patterns you noticed?<br /><br />You may have noticed a pattern due to gravitational lensing, as meteor mentioned.<br /><br />Most likely you've noticed a pattern that means nothing (statistically insignificant, i.e. a coincidence), or isn't really there...happens all the time. <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>

 

[newtonian]

ColinAndJohn - So, may I assume there are two of you?<br /><br />Welcome to SDC.<br /><br />I see them! (the circles)<br /><br />I also saw some other patterns (including a chair - compare constellation shapes) - I think analysis will determine whether I (and you all) are 'seeing' an optical illusion (helped by suggestion) or if the circular (spherical?) patterns are real.

 

[alokmohan]

Stockholm - United States scientists John C Mather and George F Smoot won the 2006 Nobel Physics Prize for their work on the Big Bang theory on the origin of the universe, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said on Tuesday.<br /><br />The pair were honoured for "their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation", the jury said.<br /><br />Under the Big Bang theory, the cosmos was formed from a cataclysmic explosion that happened about 13.7 billion years ago.<br /><br />The timescale and geometry are measurable by shockwaves called cosmic microwave background (CMB) that continues to wash over us.<br /><br />Mather, 60, is a senior astrophysicist at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, while Smoot, 61, is a professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley.<br /><br />Mather and Smoot worked on the COBE satellite launched by Nasa in 1989, whose results provided increased support for the Big Bang scenario, as this is the only scenario that predicts the kind of cosmic microwave background radiation measured by COBE.<br /><br />"These measurements also marked the inception of cosmology as a precise science," the Nobel jury said.<br /><br />Mather co-ordinated the entire process and had responsibility for the experiment that revealed the blackbody form of the microwave background radiation measured by COBE.<br /><br />Smoot meanwhile had the main responsibility for measuring the small variations in the temperature of the radiation.<br /><br />Last year, the Physic Prize went to Americans Roy Glauber and John Hall and German Theodor Haensch for groundbreaking work on understanding light and optics.<br /><br />The 2006 laureates will each receive a gold medal and a diploma and will share a cheque for 10 million Swedish kronor at the formal prize ceremony held, as tradition dictates, on December 10, the anniversary of the death in 1896 of the prize's creator Alfred Nobel.<br /><br />The Nobel prizes, founded by Swedish i

 

[yevaud]

Side Story:<br /><br />Here in Boston, we have the Longfellow Bridge, which has some very funny markings along one sidewalk, called "Smoot Marks." This is where another Smoot (Oliver), when he went to MIT, was rolled along the sidewalk by his Fraternity brothers, from one end of the bridge to the other, as a hazing. At the Boston end, it denotes exactly how many Smoot-rolls it took to traverse the bridge.<br /><br />George Smoot is frequently mistaken as the Smoot who was rolled across the bridge.<br /><br />Oliver Smoot later became Chairman of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and President of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).<br /><br />Wiki Article <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Poor Geoge Smoot ,take care the credit does not go reverse way.

 

[alokmohan]

BBC news. Last Updated: Tuesday, 3 October 2006, 0 <br /> <br />'Ancient light' takes Nobel Prize <br /> <br />Nasa launched the Cosmic Background Explorer in 1989 <br />Two US scientists, John C Mather and George F Smoot, have won the 2006 Nobel Physics Prize. <br />They have been honoured "for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB)". <br /><br />The CMB is the "oldest light" in the Universe - it is all around us and comes from a time 380,000 years after the Big <br /> <br />

 

[newtonian]

alokmohan - The CMB, as you note, was not generated at the big bang. <br /><br />One must scientifically extrapolate back for the origin of our universe, dubbed the big bang.<br /><br />We have a good idea as to what caused the CMB.<br /><br />But what caused the big bang?

 

[alokmohan]

If you agree there was a big bang,what caused it is a philosophical question.Before big bang there was nthing called time because sapcetime is one.But if you believe in quasisteady state theory of origin of universe,I will say there was infinte no of universes before the present one.

 

[newtonian]

alokmohan - Interesting how two different people can think differently!<br /><br />I consider the big bang model to possibly be correct, but it does not actually explain the HOW, and especially the cause and effect mechanism that caused the big bang.<br /><br />There was nothing called time before the big bang? Well, whatever it was called, time had to exist for the big bang to be caused.<br /><br />Cause and effect cannot proceed without time!<br /><br />I agree that our universe specific space-time began at the creation of the universe. <br /><br />However, I believe what I call primordial time must have existed before our universe was created, such that our universe was caused during primordial time.<br /><br />I do not believe in the steady state theory.<br /><br />What is the quasisteady state theory?<br /><br />Why an infinite number of universes?<br /><br />Why not approximately 100 billion universes?<br /><br />That latter point, btw, is beyond current scientific observation - and I don't think you want me to quote my favorite source on that point.

 

[alokmohan]

In 1948,Hoyle propounded that universe had no begining ,it it is there from time infinite.Later Narlikar et al improved it to quasi steady state theory.They say there was no big bang.After finding 3 degree kelvin n 1965,big bang has no rival.

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />What is the quasisteady state theory? </i><br /><br />I like to think of it as the possibility of multiple mini bangs, rather than one Big Bang. IMO it does have merit. See this link:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-steady_state_cosmology<br /><br />It appears to be an on going, developing theory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>