the big bang

[jcdenton]

Well it might be possible that after an indefinite period of expansion, the universe will begin the process of retraction and we'll be back to an infinitely condensed point of matter which could initiate another big bang. I'm no quantum theorist either so it's all just speculation.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Maddad]

jcdenton<br />"<font color="yellow">Yup according to the latest mesurements the universe will end in heat death where the universe expands forever untill all the stars go out the black holes evaporate and there is nothing left but a temperature barely above absolute zero. <br /><br />Isn't that suppose to happen in 10¹⁵ years? That's a LONG time... I wonder if that'll start a whole new big bang cycle? Hmmm...</font><br /><br />It's more like 10¹⁰⁰ years, but that is also a long time.

 

[Saiph]

it's 10^100 years for a slow and steady expansion. Not an accelerating one. That cuts the lifetime down considerably (Perhaps to 10^15, but I'm not sure). <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>

 

[lewcos]

Either way, I hope I'm here to see it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">"the universe will begin the process of retraction and we'll be back to an infinitely condensed point of matter "</font><br /><br />There may not be enough gravity after everything desipates to pull everything back.

 

[newtonian]

maddad- 10^100 years. I assume that was an approximation. How did you calculate that?<br /><br />The problem with that scenario is the assumption that we will not expand into another universe.,<br /><br />It also ignores the fact that our local section (very large section) of universe is not expanding - it is rather heading for a great attractor.<br /><br />It also ignores the cause of the big bang in the first place.<br /><br />Heat death involves the second law of thermodynamics. <br /><br />That assumes our universe is a closed system (thermodynamically, not expansion).<br /><br />However, the cause of the big bang could have been external. To me that is the only logical explanation as to how we ended up with so much energy in view of entropy.<br /><br />In brief - how did entropy allow a big bang in the first place if there was not an outside input of energy as in an open system?

 

[newtonian]

ranur - Sorry for the delay in responing -Ivan distracted me.<br /><br />We are still learning how God created and fine tuned.the universe (heaven) and earth.<br /><br />The why is love: "God is love" - 1 John 4:8<br /><br />You posted:<br /><br />If God Is behind it all....I think he either must have a really twisted view on how he should be running this place...or otherwise..he is waaay out of control. <br /><br />It is actually man who is out of control, not God. <br /><br />You probably are thinking of common religious teachings indicating things are proceeding according to God's plan. <br /><br />The Bible states quite the opposite:<br /><br />Consequently Jehovah saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6 And Jehovah felt regrets that he had made men in the earth, and he felt hurt at his heart.- Genesis 6:5,6<br /><br />The immediate cause of Armageddon is foretold in Revelation 11:18 to be man's destroying the earth. God's response will be to destroy those who are destroying the earth.<br /><br />It is man who is way out of control. <br /><br />We are supposed to love the earth as a gift of love to us from God - this is why my wife and I are organic gardeners, for example. <br /><br />Getting back to the big bang - all of the properties and laws and math in our universe cooperate to not only make our life possible, but enjoyable.<br /><br />And that includes the awesome and beautiful universe we enjoy observing in astronomy.<br /> <br />On your later post<br />OUr universe is accelerating, most feel it will therefore expand eternally.<br /><br />Not all matter turns to energy. And, at the big bang, the opposite occurred. Atomic physicists have also observed the creation of matter from energy.<br /><br />Now, I would say the cause of the big bang will also sustain our universe.

 

[Maddad]

Newtonian<br />"<font color="yellow">maddad- 10^100 years. I assume that was an approximation. How did you calculate that?</font><br />I did not calculate it. I read it in a Discover magazine some months ago.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">It also ignores the fact that our local section (very large section) of universe is not expanding - it is rather heading for a great attractor.</font><br />Space can still be expanding while we are headed in that direction.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">how did entropy allow a big bang in the first place if there was not an outside input of energy as in an open system?</font><br />Energy-matter and space-time are opposite sides of the same coin. When you create one you automatically create the other. Same as if you destroy one, you also destroy the other. As long as both go up or down together, you are not violating an expanded conservation principle. This allows you to get lots of something, matter-energy, from nothing if you are willing to call space-time negative matter-energy. The sum of both for the entire universe is zero.

 

[newtonian]

maddad - you posted concerning our local contracting portion of universe:<br /><br />Space can still be expanding (while we are headed towards the great attractor).<br /><br />Sorry, but that does not make sense. Dark energy could still be working towards trying to make the space between us and the Great Attactor greater, but the fact remains that the space in between is becoming less.<br /><br />Are you saying the space between can expand while the space between is becoming less?<br /><br />Also, you misunderstood my question concerning entropy vs. the Big Bang.<br /><br />It had nothing to do with the law of conservation of matter and energy - that is considered a law - you have some reason to believe what you posted?<br /><br />My question is dealing with thermodynamics-entropy - the tendency to go towards the most stable state, in general. <br /><br />And also the specific thermodynamics of the system.<br /><br />Since many feel our universe will undergo heat death by entropy, one would then ask how the universe got born in the first place.

 

[newtonian]

ranur- Yes - except that cold is the absence of heat, which is what I meant.<br /><br />And I don't believe our universe will undergo death by entropy for the same reason, or cause, that the big bang occurred in the first place.<br /><br />However, others do believe in this end result - these others often, not always, ignore the cause of the big bang.

 

[Maddad]

Newtonian<br />I regret that this makes no sense to you. Howsomever, your not understanding it does not negate it.

 

[evilellis]

I was reading about these stars and when they go...they go big style in a huge explosion. Heres a thought if a lot of these explosions happened at the same time cold they go down like domanos..one explosion caused the next...and on and on ??? In effect a big bang ?

 

[kmarinas86]

See picture below: <br />Caption: There are blue arrows crossing the words "You are here" that outline the general path, which the Milky Way and other galaxies in the Local Group are going to travel, over the course of billions of years. The color of lines bending toward the Local group indicate the shift in light's frequency as it travels to the Milky Way. Such shifts in frequency are caused by a large central gravitational well as well as doppler effects caused by galaxies being pulled apart from one another due to large gravitational rips which are strongest in places where there are blue galaxies.<br /><br />It is possible that the 3 blue clusters of galaxies are closer than depicted in the image below (see image on the next post). This would improve the theory by minimizing the predictive value of gravitational blueshift of light coming from galaxies which are much further away from the center, than our Local Group. Of course, in this theory, the doppler redshift component is much greater than the gravitational blueshift component - thus having a net redshift of light.<br /><br />The gravitational blueshift component of light coming from these far-away galaxies would decrease if another mass of blue galaxies and its attractor were located not far from the local group. If the local group is located between two clouds of blue galaxies with their corresponding attractors, then if we are to look either way, we will see hot, blue galaxies billions of light years away in virtually all directions. In the image below, you only see the Local Group with one corresponding attractor. In the image, there are two other attractors, each with their corresponding galaxies, but these attractors, as shown here, are too far away to have the effect described above. The light coming from galaxies which are further away from the attractor's blue galaxies, than the Local Group, would not have enough redshift for there to be the even distribution of redshift/distance that we observe i

 

[kmarinas86]

Level 2 of the Cyclical Multiverse Theory

 

[alokmohan]

Too large a a[phenomenon for common sense view.Too big explosion.

 

[evilellis2]

I could remember seeing a pic of the big bang as far back as we could go from hubble. It was like a wall of flames. <br />My question is this for there to be flames in a vacume ie space. You need OXYGEN + HEAT + FUEL = FIRE <br />So surely all three of the above were present before the big bang happened ?

 

[nevers]

That Hubble is one heck of a telescope/camera huh! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Theory says that 3 seconds after the Big Bang, the elements were formed. From nothing you get everything, therefore I am taking it that before the Big Bang, these elements were not there. I don't know...it's just easier to accept it rather than to dwell on it too long.

 

[alokmohan]

Surely not.At that time there was only radiation.So it might be some form of radiation.

 

[mooware]

and where did you see this pic? I wasn't aware that we could see that far back. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure we can't<br />

 

[newtonian]

mooware - I don't think there were pics at the big bang. <br /><br />I prefer using a maddock, btw.<br /><br />Nevers - There was only hydrogen, helium and a little Lithium until stars were formed. Then red giants synthesized heavier elements.<br /><br />Energy came first, then matter.

 

[alokmohan]

So the matter is solved.It was illusion.

 

[termite]

evilellis2 - I think the picture your thinking about was of background x-rays, and it showed the universe started to get lumpy very early in its (and i hate to use the word) creation

 

[aetherius]

Matter-Plasma-Energy:<br /><br />I've never been clear on the distinction between matter and energy. I think my confusion begins at the quantum level. Strings are vibrating energy. If strings are the fundamental ingredients of particles and particles are the fundamental ingredients of matter---Then what is it that differentiates matter from energy?<br /><br />E=MC^2?<br /><br />It seems like matter is energy at its most basic level so M=f(E). How can energy be a function of energy? <br />E=f(E)^2 ?<br /><br />Isn't that like saying that an inch is 1/12 of a foot, <br />I = F/12 <br />but then defining a foot as 12 inches so that <br /><br />I = F/12 = (12I)/12 = /> I=I? <br /><br />In other words, it seems inconsistent to define energy as a function of matter if matter is a function of energy. If you do it seems you end up with energy defined as an identity or a constant, or undefined, depending on the functional form.

 

[kmarinas86]

If you want to think of Mass as a function of Energy, you can say that m(E)=E/c²<br /><br />mass is actually a function of only 1 variable (in a vacuum):<br />m(E)=E/c²=Ep₀µ₀<br /><br />c = speed of light₀ = 1 / sqrt(p₀*µ₀)<br />p₀ = permittivity of free space (8.85419x10^-12Fm^-1)<br />µ₀ = permeability of free space (4pi*10^-7Hm^-1) <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity#Permittivity_in_media<br /><br />If this following is wrong I would like to know why:<br /><br />mass in a medium is actually a function of 3 variables:<br />where c = speed of light = 1 / sqrt(p*µ)<br />m(E)=E/c²=Epµ<br />E = simply the amount of energy<br />p = permittivity of the medium (Fm^-1)<br />µ = permeability of the medium (Hm^-1)<br /><br />If the permittivity and permeability of some hypothetical medium is less than that of a vacuum, then m(E) is less, and c would be a higher velocity, which would effectively permit a spacecraft to permeate through this medium FTL(in a vacuum).<br /><br />Regardless, nothing is really ever faster than light. It's just as impossible to break the speed of light in water, in water, and the speed of light in air, in air - etc.

 

[aetherius]

I guess I am making an error in associating mass only with matter? <br /><br />I didn't mean to say M = Matter. But I was thinking, perhpas erroneously, that mass implied matter.<br /><br />I know there is mass at rest and "massless" particles. But where do you draw the line between matter and energy.