The Big Bang in One Direction?

[moulin]

<p>From what I understand, and I could be wrong (please correct me if I am) the universe was thought to have started from a "primordial atom" or singularity.&nbsp;There was then an expansion and from this and&nbsp;other interactions all&nbsp;of the mater in the universe was made.</p><p>I have always disliked this theory. The thought of <em>all</em> of the matter in the universe being in an object the size of an atom, or an infinitly small&nbsp;"singularity"&nbsp;is something that I will never believe. This has been my position and will remain probably forever, but I never thought of a possible alternitive that would seem to explain the data, until now. It seems so obvious that I would have to imagine someone has thought of it already, so let me know.</p><p>I have been interested in black holes and the way that they suck in matter for awhile. I wonder, where does the matter go? What I have been wondering is if it is possible that they shoot out the matter into another dimension, and that our universe is from this type of event. This would mean that instead of a "primordial atom" we would have scattered&nbsp;matter shooting out from another dimension that started it. It seems to me like this would still account for the data of the expanding universe, without the crazy "primordial atom." </p><p>We already know about black holes, so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to think that the matter may start other universes.</p><p>Let me know what you think.</p>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>Primordial singularity might be a better description instead of an atom.</p><p>And no... you are not the first to think this.</p><p>Here's a link to read up on the hypothetical "white hole".</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole</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>

 

[baulten]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From what I understand, and I could be wrong (please correct me if I am) the universe was thought to have started from a "primordial atom." This atom expanded and through other interactions&nbsp;made all of the mater in the universe.I have always disliked this theory. The thought of all of the matter in the universe being in an object the size of an atom is something that I will never believe. This has been my position and will remain probably forever, but I never thought of a possible alternitive that would seem to explain the data, until now. It seems so obvious that I would have to imagine someone has thought of it already, so let me know.I have been interested in black holes and the way that they suck in matter for awhile. I wonder, where does the matter go? What I have been wondering is if it is possible that they shoot out the matter into another dimension, and that our universe is from this type of event. This would mean that instead of a "primordial atom" we would have scattered&nbsp;matter shooting out from another dimension that started it. It seems to me like this would still account for the data of the expanding universe, without the crazy "primordial atom." We already know about black holes, so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to think that the matter may start other universes.Let me know how stupid I am and how impossible this is <br /> Posted by moulin</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>First off, the universe was never a "primordial atom".&nbsp; It was a singularity.&nbsp; Now, our knowledge of singularities is very limitted, but it isn't an atom.</p><p>Secondly, the big bang wasn't an explosion in spacetime, but an explosion of spacetime.&nbsp; Some theorize that at the density, gravitational pull, etc. spacetime itself would collapse into the singularity.&nbsp; Somehow, the singularity become... unsingular and suddenly expanded.&nbsp;</p><p>Last, black holes don't take matter anywhere, at least not as far as our understanding of them goes.&nbsp; Though it is possible, it seems unlikely.&nbsp; The matter simply collapses into a zero-dimensional region with infinite density and pressure.&nbsp; Though some theories (such as the string theory) suggest that the very basic particles might keep a black hole "3D", what we currently understand is that the point which the matter collapses appears to be zero-dimensional.&nbsp; A singularity, as stated above. </p>

 

[moulin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;First off, the universe was never a "primordial atom".&nbsp; It was a singularity.&nbsp; Now, our knowledge of singularities is very limitted, but it isn't an atom.Secondly, the big bang wasn't an explosion in spacetime, but an explosion of spacetime.&nbsp; Some theorize that at the density, gravitational pull, etc. spacetime itself would collapse into the singularity.&nbsp; Somehow, the singularity become... unsingular and suddenly expanded.&nbsp;Last, black holes don't take matter anywhere, at least not as far as our understanding of them goes.&nbsp; Though it is possible, it seems unlikely.&nbsp; The matter simply collapses into a zero-dimensional region with infinite density and pressure.&nbsp; Though some theories (such as the string theory) suggest that the very basic particles might keep a black hole "3D", what we currently understand is that the point which the matter collapses appears to be zero-dimensional.&nbsp; A singularity, as stated above. <br />Posted by baulten</DIV></p><p>Please explain what you mean by "singularity." This idea intrigues me. What proof is there of something such as this? I am also curious about "infinite density and pressure." These things existing as an "infinty" seems impossible to me.</p><p>From what I understand, theories like this are just based on trying to take the current data of how fast matter is moving and in what direction, then reversing this to theorize about what it was like at the beginning. It seems much more likely to me that matter came from another dimension (or set of dimensions) than existing in some kind of "infinite" state.</p>

 

[vogon13]

<p>Hawking radiation eventually liberates all the detritus and fluff that winds up in black holes in the form of photons that slowly (very slowly) become more energetic as the black hole evaporates.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>We don't need a superfluous theory&nbsp; of where the stuff in a black hole goes when we already know.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[moulin]

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation</p><p>"However, the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed, nor are there currently viable experimental tests which would allow it to be observed."</p>

 

[baulten]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please explain what you mean by "singularity." This idea intrigues me. What proof is there of something such as this? I am also curious about "infinite density and pressure." These things existing as an "infinty" seems impossible to me.From what I understand, theories like this are just based on trying to take the current data of how fast matter is moving and in what direction, then reversing this to theorize about what it was like at the beginning. It seems much more likely to me that matter came from another dimension (or set of dimensions) than existing in some kind of "infinite" state. <br /> Posted by moulin</DIV><br />Gravitational singularities (such as what the universe may have been at the beginning) occur when any large amount of matter undergoes gravitational collapse, meaning that the gravitational force overcomes any type of pressure that would resist said collapse (such as electron degeneracy pressure in white dwarfs).&nbsp; I can't recall the name of the point where the amount of matter in a certain region will cause the star or other object to undergo collapse into a black hole, though.&nbsp; Anyone else know?</p><p>Why would it seem more likely when there is at least some evidence of singularities as opposed to very little evidence of extra dimensions? <br /><br />Edit: Found it.&nbsp; It's called the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit.&nbsp; At this point, no known pressure can resist gravitational collapse any longer.&nbsp; Theoretically, it would collapse to a zero dimensional point.&nbsp; Observational, no one has any idea, nor is there really any way to test it, as the event horizon is formed well before zero dimensions </p>

 

[derekmcd]

This might change when the Large Hadron Collider comes on-line. <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>

 

[baulten]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This might change when the Large Hadron Collider comes on-line. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br />It'd be nice if it did.&nbsp; Would open a whole new load of questions for physicists.&nbsp; However, I was just speaking that as of today, we don't exactly have solid evidence of extra dimensions.

 

[derekmcd]

<p><strong><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"I can't recall the name of the point where the amount of matter in a certain region will cause the star or other object to undergo collapse into a black hole, though.&nbsp; Anyone else know?Why would it seem more likely when there is at least some evidence of singularities as opposed to very little evidence of extra dimensions? Edit: Found it.&nbsp; It's called the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit."</strong></p><p> <strong><br /> Posted by baulten</DIV></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I think you are referring to the Schwarzchild radius.</p><p>&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>

 

[vogon13]

<p>Stephen Hawking was even able to predict the spectrum of the emitted radiation in great detail from a fundamental understanding of the mechanism of particle/anti-particle virtual particles in proximity to an event horizon.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Who needs observations when you have Hawking on your team ??</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[baulten]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I think you are referring to the Schwarzchild radius. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Yeah, I read it a bit wrong.&nbsp; The Schwardzchild radius would be the point at which it becomes a black hole; presumable, a singularity. </p>

 

[moulin]

<p>I have been reading up on this a little more and I guess I must be more of a believer in Quantum Mechanics (which does&nbsp;not allow objects to have zero size i.e. no singularity) than General Relativity, which does. </p><p>Although I guess my theory is sort of like general relativity except I like to think that&nbsp;when the mass becomes infinite, it goes into another dimension (or set of).</p><p>Oh well.. it will be interesting to see if any modern experiments can flesh this out.</p>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>That is a question with a tricky, elusive answer.</p><p>How to combine Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.&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>

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation"However, the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed, nor are there currently viable experimental tests which would allow it to be observed." <br /> Posted by moulin</DIV><br />Is this experiment not conclusive enough? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Saiph]

<p>First, they haven't actually detected Hawking radiation yet.&nbsp; They've outlined how they might be able to do it, but haven't even started looking yet.</p><p>&nbsp;And second, it won't satisfy some of the purists out there, who will insist that we can't infer one from the other.&nbsp; Frankly, I'm still scratching my head as to what's really going on there, but it makes some sense. </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>

 

[dryson]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From what I understand, and I could be wrong (please correct me if I am) the universe was thought to have started from a "primordial atom" or singularity.&nbsp;There was then an expansion and from this and&nbsp;other interactions all&nbsp;of the mater in the universe was made.I have always disliked this theory. The thought of all of the matter in the universe being in an object the size of an atom, or an infinitly small&nbsp;"singularity"&nbsp;is something that I will never believe. This has been my position and will remain probably forever, but I never thought of a possible alternitive that would seem to explain the data, until now. It seems so obvious that I would have to imagine someone has thought of it already, so let me know.I have been interested in black holes and the way that they suck in matter for awhile. I wonder, where does the matter go? What I have been wondering is if it is possible that they shoot out the matter into another dimension, and that our universe is from this type of event. This would mean that instead of a "primordial atom" we would have scattered&nbsp;matter shooting out from another dimension that started it. It seems to me like this would still account for the data of the expanding universe, without the crazy "primordial atom." We already know about black holes, so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to think that the matter may start other universes.Let me know what you think. <br />Posted by moulin</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The Universe is an infite place, there was not a single starting point like popular dogma would suggest. Ask yourself this question: If there was one starting point from which the Universe sprang forth from, where did this point start from? One starting point always leads to another starting point&nbsp;and so forth&nbsp;into the realm of infinite.</p><p>No one will ever know how the whole thing all started off, if we did find a supposed starting point then the paragraph above then be brought into effect. </p><p>This Galaxy yes maybe came from numerous causes and effects in&nbsp;space, but not from a singularity. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The real question that can only be theorized about is if a singularity was the cause of existance, what was before this singularity? Was space which is the absence of something or a void medium also encapsulated in this singularity? Was there the void medium before the Big Bang and nothing but a brilliant light? Where did this brilliant light come from? It all leads back to a paradox of not knowing but only being able to be explored, colonized and evolved to.</p>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><strong><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The Universe is an infite place, there was not a single starting point like popular dogma would suggest.<br /><br /> Posted by dryson</DIV></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>What evidence can you present us to back up a statement like this?&nbsp; </p><p>You go on to speak of the 'first cause', but keep in mind, the Big Bang model is not meant to describe what was going on at t=0 and earlier.&nbsp; Only an attempt to model what happened after.&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>