Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep29_banner.thumb.jpg.da7f3b163f7bd35187cb558b0346baf6.jpg

Gilps

Why haven't we had another big bang?

Recommended Posts

Oh, I agree that we hear far too much conjecture on popular science shows. It is assumed., perhaps correctly, that the TV viewer will not sit through detailed explanations of the detective work that is most of science. I've grown to really dislike TV for such reasons but I must say that Jim Al Khalili's efforts were the best I have ever seen. Not so impressed with Cox's, sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you go down to the store and buy a bottle of dark matter

Yes you can, it's everywhere!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes you can, it's everywhere!

Well it won't stay in the bottle! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well - it depends on what you require as proof. Can you go down to the store and buy a bottle of dark matter - no - because we're not sure what it is.

Would our Milky Way or the Andromeda galaxy hang together without dark matter? No it wouldn't. The outside stars are moving too fast for the amount of visible matter to be held onto. They should be flying off at a considerable speed, but they're not.

But there's my issue.... We're not sure what it is, so it must be something because it's holding stuff together as galaxies can't be held together without it. But we don't know what it is, but it must be there, but we don't know what it is.....aaaarrrggghhh!

Sorry for not getting it. I just don't. Because 99% of astronomers believe it, I'm in the minority - emperor's new clothes? world is flat? - 99% of people believed those too because experts told them it was so. I am wrestling with trying to understand it all and I am sure you are probably right but stating it and (for my part) understanding it are two different skills.

I am really interested in learning more, so I will trawl through this section and pick up more knowledge...and conjecture....it all helps and thanks for taking time out to explain it guys.

Edited by Skybrowser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a better analogy is the neutrino. It was first postulated because either there was such a particle being created in certain nuclear reactions, or else we'd have to give up the laws of the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy - two particularly cherished laws that have always worked for us up to then.

So making up a particle like the neutrino that makes everything right and rebalances the books was a leap in the dark, and it took a long time before they were actually detected for real. Up til then they were a convenience that made things right - and I'm sure there were plenty of doubters.

Neutrinos are still fearsomely difficult to detect, but we do now have detectors that can count them, although its a staggeringly low efficiency of detection (like 30 events a day out of billions upon billions that pass through the detector).

Similar detectors are running right now trying to find dark matter - and they have got some results, but not enough to declare detection. I think there are 4 or 5 trying to directly detect dark matter (CoGeNT and CDMS amongst them) but they are harder to detect than neutrinos so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've become accustomed to the idea that I probably just won't like any theories that appear late in my life because they will not appear as "solid" as the ones I came across when I was young. It's a fact of life...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theory and conjecture must be distinguished, I would agree, but without conjecture there would be no thoeries. When there is a phenomenon in need of explanation the first explanations take the form of conjecture. Someone has to stick their neck out. The importance of conjecture has, according to Jocelyn Bell, been under-examined by pholosophers of science (or that's what I believe she was saying though it was something on the radio so I can't check it.)

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol love all the DEEP chat but dose anyone have thereOWN ideas??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All my ideas are mine, if yours are not yours, well, that's one of the symptoms of schizophrenia, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know but we swop all our thoughts :/ .....

We meant does anyone have any thoughts they would like to share with the rest of us on how they think the universe began.... is ... or will end... be replaced.... or something of a similar nature lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must try harder, Eh? :D

People have new / good ideas in science all the time. But Truly revolutionary ones are the domain of a few folks per generation? Much of the "middle-ground" has been explored or refuted. :headbang: The internet is full of "quantum" theories explaining why Toast lands butter side down, but however (mathematically even!) impressive, if I were a betting man... :)

Edited by Macavity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are thinking about it all wrong. In theory, you can imagine a vast nothing and then an explosion somewhere, a big bang. This explosion gets bigger and bigger. It must be getting bigger into something. The same way a balloon stretches into the air when inflating.

But this is all very wrong. The balloon analogy was used to make it simpler to understand, not to be taken as fact.

All of everyting was a void. A void of nothing. You have near perfection. Order. Nothing had to exist. But something can appear from nothing, and it did. That something (which we think is gravity) created a slight amount of disorder in the nothingness. Everything, the entire void that was nothing then had a relation to the disorder(be it distance, gravity, time, light, temperature)and this in turn makes nothing - something.

The non-void begins to expand as the void realises its energy potential upon realising it is something and not nothing. Everything gains energy relating to everything else.

This would be a massive kick to relative speeds as energy is released.

From nothing. To a cloud of something and nothing.

This was exagerated over a finite time and due to imperfections (disorder) clumps formed, which in turn evolved into galaxies.

Gravity (the imperfection) actually repulses and only on much much smaller scales does it attract.

All of these forces act to push everything substantial in mass away from everything else substantial in mass.

The void or nothing - was always there. Now it is full of ****. The same amount of ****. Just in a very disordered state.

No outside and no inside. It is just everything. No explosion with flames, no bow shock, no shockwaves at all.

And nobody watched it. Nobody could because they were and still are a part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are thinking about it all wrong. In theory, you can imagine a vast nothing and then an explosion somewhere, a big bang. This explosion gets bigger and bigger. It must be getting bigger into something. The same way a balloon stretches into the air when inflating.

But this is all very wrong. The balloon analogy was used to make it simpler to understand, not to be taken as fact.

All of everyting was a void. A void of nothing. You have near perfection. Order. Nothing had to exist. But something can appear from nothing, and it did. That something (which we think is gravity) created a slight amount of disorder in the nothingness. Everything, the entire void that was nothing then had a relation to the disorder(be it distance, gravity, time, light, temperature)and this in turn makes nothing - something.

The non-void begins to expand as the void realises its energy potential upon realising it is something and not nothing. Everything gains energy relating to everything else.

This would be a massive kick to relative speeds as energy is released.

From nothing. To a cloud of something and nothing.

This was exagerated over a finite time and due to imperfections (disorder) clumps formed, which in turn evolved into galaxies.

Gravity (the imperfection) actually repulses and only on much much smaller scales does it attract.

All of these forces act to push everything substantial in mass away from everything else substantial in mass.

The void or nothing - was always there. Now it is full of ****. The same amount of ****. Just in a very disordered state.

No outside and no inside. It is just everything. No explosion with flames, no bow shock, no shockwaves at all.

And nobody watched it. Nobody could because they were and still are a part of it.

OOOOOOO I liked this one.... so if the void or nothing could be thought of as a closed pressurized container of water at 110celcious then when the pleasure is released it flash boils and the universe as we know it comes into existence throughout the container everywhere at the same time?????

NO shock wave or bow wave.... Just existance ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, the big bang theory is just that - a theory. It has yet to be proven, it is based totally on the fact that the universe currently appears to be expanding, and although that certainly appears to be so at this point in time, it may not have always been the case.

You can come up with any scientific theory you like to fit what is believed to be the case based on current events, it's very easy to get lost if we're not careful.

I'm not saying the big bang didn't happen, I'm just saying that the scientific community should be very careful about staying firmly put on any theory that has yet to be proven, otherwise they could end up going down a very long dead end, only to find that they have to back track a long way to get back on track.

Edited by Cath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm interesting. O.k heres my take on things. First of to address the earlier debate on the size of the universe and i have to agree with Olly on this one. When astro physicists talk about observing galaxies that are 13 billion years old it should not be taken to mean that 13 billion light years is a given distance and therefore the point to the edge of our galaxy. The 13 billion years is merely a reference to how far back in time they have looked. The light that they are seeing left that galaxy 13 billion years ago however as space time is still currently expanding (indeed the greater the distance the faster the expansion) the object in view would now be an estimated 64 billion light years distance. But of course as space tiem is constantly expanding then were you to travel to that point at the speed of light the object would no longer be there but would still be some considerable light year distance off.

Regards the debate on theorie and conjecture i think in science many theories cannot be proven matter of fact. Indeed its an important part of science, its what makes science flexible and open to new ideas. The important thing to remeber is that when a theory is concieved it is not just taken a fact, it has to be able to be used as a model and fit the observations we make. If multiple theories match the observations we make and can be used just as accurately as each other in precidictions then all would be said to be correct. Or at least none would be said to be incorrect. This allows science to move forward with new ideas as discoveries are made. For instance Newtons law of garvity would have appeared to be totally accurate and a proven point in its time but as we have made new observations it has become clear that it is at best inadequate, and this of course led to Einsteins works. So its not always either possible or even required that theories are proven facto, what is important is that they fit our current observations without discrepency and can be used to predict events. So in regards to dark matter no it has not been proven to exist in real terms but without it galaxies cannot exist. Its not that they take longer to form but quite simply would tear themselves apart and cease to exist. As a result we know something has to exist that binds mass together to form galaxies (and no gravity doesnt fit the bill) and we have simply named this something dark matter.

In regards to the original topic i am surprised no one has mentioned the multiple universe theory as of yet (appologies if someone has). This theory suggests that our universe is not alone and that infinate universes exist outside the current boundaries of our own. Each would have unique properties, some maybe consist mainly of anti-matter, some where by gravity is the strongest force as opposed to the weakest, some where nothing happens at all etc etc. Think of a bath full of soup bubbles all nestled up against each other, popping in and out of existance. In fact this is quite a strongly regarded theory and ties in with string theory as maybe the closets we have to the grand united theory. Multiple universes have also been used to explain how issues such as the grandfather paradox could be advoided in time travel, but thats a whole different subject. Indeed there has been some debate about a slight fluxuation seen in the WMAP at a point could be the result of a external universes that is currently interacting with our own at that point. Either way if this theory has any merit then it certainly suggests that big bangs have not only happened more than once but happen constantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol wow reading that back my spelling sucks. Note to self think whilst typing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is, the big bang theory is just that - a theory. It has yet to be proven,

Now listen very carefully, I shall say this only once

All theories are "yet to be proven"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now listen very carefully, I shall say this only once

All theories are "yet to be proven"

Well yes themos, I know :D

I was only stating the obvious (obvious to a lot, not obvious to many) to remind those watching the show :headbang:

Edited by Cath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are thinking about it all wrong. In theory, you can imagine a vast nothing and then an explosion somewhere, a big bang. This explosion gets bigger and bigger. It must be getting bigger into something. The same way a balloon stretches into the air when inflating.

But this is all very wrong. The balloon analogy was used to make it simpler to understand, not to be taken as fact.

All of everyting was a void. A void of nothing. You have near perfection. Order. Nothing had to exist. But something can appear from nothing, and it did. That something (which we think is gravity) created a slight amount of disorder in the nothingness. Everything, the entire void that was nothing then had a relation to the disorder(be it distance, gravity, time, light, temperature)and this in turn makes nothing - something.

The non-void begins to expand as the void realises its energy potential upon realising it is something and not nothing. Everything gains energy relating to everything else.

This would be a massive kick to relative speeds as energy is released.

From nothing. To a cloud of something and nothing.

This was exagerated over a finite time and due to imperfections (disorder) clumps formed, which in turn evolved into galaxies.

Gravity (the imperfection) actually repulses and only on much much smaller scales does it attract.

All of these forces act to push everything substantial in mass away from everything else substantial in mass.

The void or nothing - was always there. Now it is full of ****. The same amount of ****. Just in a very disordered state.

No outside and no inside. It is just everything. No explosion with flames, no bow shock, no shockwaves at all.

And nobody watched it. Nobody could because they were and still are a part of it.

I'm not sure you understand the baloon analogy but, if I'm wrong, forgive me. In the analogy only the surface of the baloon exists. It is not allowed to be an expanding spheroid in the analogy. Its surface is the only part of it that exists. It is only an analogy but does need to be understood in its own terms.

Personally I have no problem with the idea of space and time beginning because I see no reason to think that we can observe all the dimensions which exist. I also think we have good reason to believe that we have a dismally inadequate grasp of time. The past-present-future model with its flow or single direction is locally convenient but surely cannot be the real truth.

For me, a better theory of time would be worth any amount of string theory and I don't see quantum theory moving into any kind of qualitative explanation of the sub atomic world without a new theory of time.

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure you understand the baloon analogy but, if I'm wrong, forgive me. In the analogy only the surface of the baloon exists. It is not allowed to be an expanding spheroid in the analogy. Its surface is the only part of it that exists. It is only an analogy but does need to be understood in its own terms.

Personally I have no problem with the idea of space and time beginning because I see no reason to think that we can observe all the dimensions which exist. I also think we have good reason to believe that we have a dismally inadequate grasp of time. The past-present-future model with its flow or single direction is locally convenient but surely cannot be the real truth.

For me, a better theory of time would be worth any amount of string theory and I don't see quantum theory moving into any kind of qualitative explanation of the sub atomic world without a new theory of time.

Olly

Yes I understand it fine. I have to agree with you too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about if everything as we know it is not as it seems. We are very limited in what we can perceive as reality. For example we know our sun is huge and we can get an idea of how big in scale to earth it is but we cannot truly perceive this within our minds. Again with the moon. How many people have said how big is the moon tonight. 9/10 this will be when the moon is brushing the horizon and we can perceive the size of the moon against common day objects. Once high in the sky the moon is no smaller we just perceive it as being smaller. It is the same huge ball of rock we just see it in a different perspective. My point is that we perceive every thing through a conditioning of the mind. There are some truly great minds out there that can calculate very accurate theories but the mind is bound by a perception of how things are. This is why we ask "what came first the chicken or the egg?", "If the universe is a balloon what is it expanding into?". What I would ask of people is can you tell me where you are? what are you? The truth is there is no you, no I. Someone mentioned we are made up of atoms and those atoms are actually made up of space that is held together by energy. So I am assuming buy saying this that in actual fact we are only a force an invisible energy that exists to create an object (body) to which we perceive (as human, me, I). When we sleep at night our body carries on doing it's thing regardless of the fact we are fast a sleep and technically unconscious, so we are not our bodies. You are all sat reading this text and your mind is critiquing what I am saying due to the individuals conditioning (ie: up bringing, knowledge, aptitude, beliefs) which is actually the mind and again not you or I. If there was anything that could be considered within our understanding as being I then that would be consciousness. Anyone who has meditated can see for themselves that this consciousness is separate from the mind and body and it is what many believe holds the answer to true existence. It is very difficult for most people to contemplate that anything can exist with out form yet I would like anyone to point out where consciousness exists within themselves. We struggle to see beyond an end or before a start as we are conditioned by a belief that existence is reliant on form. For the BB to happen there must have been a mixture of some thing or other to create the big bang which within the boundaries of our knowledge and understanding of the universe is true. I cannot explain what was before the big bang or if in fact there was anything but what I will tell you is that what ever it was is actually apart of us. We were not born from our parents loins but from a succession of evolution. We were born from before the moment of the BB. Everything that has happened afterwards has led up to the point where I and each and everyone of us are now. We are just separated from that fact as we only see ourselves in a present form and consider it as I. I was born X amount of years ago and will die in XXX years. What happens to the invisible energy that holds my present form together I do not know?? May be it returns to the energy that holds every thing else together around us ?? Maybe energy existed before the BB. It dose not exist how we would perceive it but it obviously exists as it is holding us together and everything else for that fact. All sounds a bit smiley_emoticons_star-wars-jedi1-gruen.gifObi-Wan I know but I'm not claiming it is the case merely speculating.

Edited by spaceboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.