Society for Popular Astronomy
https://popastro.com/forum/

What created the Big Bang
https://popastro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12215
Page 4 of 9

Author:  Cliff [ Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:25 am ]
Post subject: 

Dear al(L)
A new theory of everything.
The idea of creating a Universe first happened an infinite length of time in the past.
Unfortunately it took from that infinite time back until 13.7 billion years ago to actually design and build the new machine (the ancient collider).
Eventually 13.7 billion years ago the ancient collider was first fired up (the BIG Bang!).
Unfortunately there was a leak necessitating hurried repairs.
Rejuvinated Ancient Collider with improved performance quickly fired up again (inflamation).
NO WAY AFTER THAT OF STOPPING THE DAMNED THING !!!!!!
CHITTI-CHITTI BANG BANG !!!!!!!
Best wishes for Christmas from Cliff

Author:  ukmtk [ Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:45 am ]
Post subject:  Brian Greene

I suggest reading Brian Greenes: Fabric of the Cosmos or Elegant Universe. That might help a bit. The explanation of hyper inflation and the mass required for the whole universe was awesome.

Author:  Cliff [ Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Dear Utmtk
I must admit I have had the Greene book you recommend for several years but never got round to reading it properly. It is one of several books I have had but never got to real grips with.
Best wishes from Cliff

Author:  Basard [ Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:18 am ]
Post subject: 

Guys, if you could live another 10 or 50 billion years.... Enough supermassive blackholes will merge, and we will all find out how the big bang came to exist.

It's the next logical step, stars go supernova... blackhholes, I bet, do the same thing. Even atoms do it, sorta. Everything explodes, eventually--even this "nothing" you speak of.

Author:  richardw [ Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:24 pm ]
Post subject: 

Dr Michio Kaku seems to be mentioned alot in topics such as string theory and multiverse.

Author:  Quasar [ Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

The thing which is confusing to me is this. They say that the big bang was created from an infinitely sized singularity, the big bang took place and the expansion etc until we get the Universe we have today. Why would an infinitely sized singularity need to expand at all when it could be any conceivable size it could choose to be? Because any singularity is not subject to a relativalitic viewpoint of itself it is neither big or small at the same time. Therefore any expansion of such an object would be rather pointless. In fact such a singularity would be as likely to contract rather then expand because in essense there is no difference. How big is an egg ladies and Gentlemen before the Universe which created it comes into existance?
It's all tosh to me.

Author:  brian livesey [ Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:23 am ]
Post subject: 

We have to stay with the observational data and deduce from that, otherwise we run the risk of veering off into "mystical" and contradictory explanations for phenomena.

Author:  joe [ Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:08 am ]
Post subject: 

Quasar wrote:
Why would an infinitely sized singularity need to expand at all when it could be any conceivable size it could choose to be?

The only reason for theorising about an infinitely small initial state at all is that we observe the universe's expansion and from that we conclude that the universe was smaller in the past. No expansion, no singularity, no confusion.

Author:  Quasar [ Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
The only reason for theorising about an infinitely small initial state at all is that we observe the universe's expansion and from that we conclude that the universe was smaller in the past. No expansion, no singularity, no confusion.

But there is no concept of small, large, wide, narrow or any descriptive word to do with any such theory. At what point along an infinite scale can one introduce themselves to reality? That would be like calculating the size of nothingness.
The bang bang theory explains to a certain extent the observable Universe we see today but at the same time creates boundaries into which we dare not tread. The boundary of what was before and what will be after for a start.
It assumes things which have no right to be assumed. I would much rather call it 'the alleged big bang theory'.
'Smaller' than what? Smaller than itself now? How do you know that it isn't the exact same size now as it always was? Are you looking from the outside in or the inside out Joe?

Author:  joe [ Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

Can you look at the universe from either of those perspectives - from outside in or inside out? I don't think so. They don't make sense. The size of things only refers to their comparative size to other things in the universe, not to a hypothetical "outside".

If the distance between matter is increasing with the progress of time then the assumption is that it was more closely bound at earlier times. Particles that are widely spaced in intergalactic space have fewer forces acting on them than do those that are tightly packed together; a state found in the early universe. It is not symmetrical. The BB theory describes a then and now; a state where matter was very dense (in a smaller universe) and became one which is less dense. It would have to increase in size to do that.

Author:  Quasar [ Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

joe wrote:
Can you look at the universe from either of those perspectives - from outside in or inside out? I don't think so. They don't make sense. The size of things only refers to their comparative size to other things in the universe, not to a hypothetical "outside".

If the distance between matter is increasing with the progress of time then the assumption is that it was more closely bound at earlier times. Particles that are widely spaced in intergalactic space have fewer forces acting on them than do those that are tightly packed together; a state found in the early universe. It is not symmetrical. The BB theory describes a then and now; a state where matter was very dense (in a smaller universe) and became one which is less dense. It would have to increase in size to do that.

In that case then, we are observing the Universe from inside looking out and making assumptions on our observations that are made from our own relative viewpoint.
That relative viewpoint is based on the mechanics of our own Galaxy and our own Solar system, they may not represent a neutral standpoint of observation which in essence is impossible from where we are. The methods we deploy to measure, calculate and estimate the age and size of this Universe in my opinion are flawed. We use Special relativity to try and overcome some of these problems but it only partly solves some of the complexities we are faced with. Basically we are observing the Universe from a biased prospective. It is a similar scenario to having an enormous bucket spinning around at high speed then inside that bucket is a man spinning another bucket around at high speed with another man spinning a bucket around at high speed inside that one. The smallest bucket is us trying to work out what goes on through all the bucket systems beyond the biggest bucket. We then come up with ideas and theories that according to scientists have no buckets in them. There will always be buckets in those ideas even though we think there are none. The reason behind that is because we can never get out of our own little bucket. Therefore Joe we will always be on the inside looking out, anyone who has the ability to look in from the outside we be in a far better position to comment than what we will ever be able to.

Author:  joe [ Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

I don't think many would disagree that our methods of measuring are flawed. We can only work with the data that's available to us. However, when discussing the size and expansion of the universe, it might be better and more accurate, to use a scale factor and co-moving distances rather than simply measuring from A to B with a big ruler - less room for confusion.

Author:  Quasar [ Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

joe wrote:
I don't think many would disagree that our methods of measuring are flawed. We can only work with the data that's available to us. However it might be better to use a scale factor and co-moving distances rather than simply measuring from A to B with a big ruler - less room for confusion.

Thats almost funny :lol:

Author:  Quasar [ Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ok Joe we measured the age and size of the Universe using a linear timescale of events based on the mechanics of our own Solar system, our own biological and chronological clocks which by the way we invented to satisfy our own needs at the time! Have we ever stopped to think that the rest of the Universe may not particularly agree that our clocks are any good?
The problem is Joe that our clocks and our rulers are also inside our bucket that we can't get out of and they may not work particularly well once they come out of that bucket. I wouldn't like to make any bets about this subject, but hey - carry on guessing old lad.

Edit: It is wrong to assume that an atomic clock running in our Solar system, inside our Galaxy and effected by the mechanics of those systems could be regarded as some sort of Universal clock from which we could measure the rest of the Universe. When outside the confines of those systems there is no Guarantee that an 'Earth year' would be anywhere near the same. For all we know an 'Earth year' could well be 200 years in one part of the Universe and 20 seconds in another. We have no Universal atomic clock to work with, therefore it is pointless and futile to to try and guess how old or large anything is which isn't in the confines of our own relativalistic viewpoint and the Universe unfortunately is definately not.

Author:  joe [ Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quasar wrote:
We have no Universal atomic clock to work with, therefore it is pointless and futile to to try and guess how old or large anything is which isn't in the confines of our own relativalistic viewpoint and the Universe unfortunately is definately not.

As far as I'm aware time and distance is based on the speed of light, a universal constant.

Page 4 of 9 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/