| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Lörd Phÿltêr" |
| Date: |
11 Feb 2006 10:42:15 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Opinion, was there a "Big Bang"? |
I'm of the persuasion that the universe is like a giant lava lamp, matter
ebbing and flowing, stars and planets dying, stars and planets being re-born,
and this is eternal.
--
Lörd Phÿltêr
Alt.Atheism #1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
.
|
|
| User: "DaveJr" |
|
| Title: Re: Opinion, was there a "Big Bang"? |
12 Feb 2006 12:05:21 AM |
|
|
"Lörd Phÿltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9768811B1A1D2cogitoergosum@61.9.191.5...
I'm of the persuasion that the universe is like a giant lava lamp,
matter
ebbing and flowing, stars and planets dying, stars and planets being
re-born,
and this is eternal.
Do a google search for WMAP and or COBE.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Opinion, was there a "Big Bang"? |
12 Feb 2006 02:33:15 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns9768811B1A1D2cogitoergosum@61.9.191.5>,
"Lörd Phÿltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote:
I'm of the persuasion that the universe is like a giant lava lamp, matter
ebbing and flowing, stars and planets dying, stars and planets being re-born,
and this is eternal.
At one time the 'Oscillating Universe' theory was fairly popular. That
is the universe would continue to expand until at some point
gravitational forces would overcome the expansive forces and the
universe would begin to contract. It would do so until everything came
together in a 'big crunch' which would set off another big bang and the
whole process would begin again. Recently however this theory has fallen
out of favor due to later discoveries. For a summary:
Oscillatory universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillating_universe
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gigantul" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Opinion, was there a "Big Bang"? |
11 Feb 2006 11:10:42 PM |
|
|
L=F6rd Ph=FFlt=EAr wrote:
I'm of the persuasion that the universe is like a giant lava lamp, matter
ebbing and flowing, stars and planets dying, stars and planets being re-b=
orn,
and this is eternal.
--
L=F6rd Ph=FFlt=EAr
Alt.Atheism #1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attach=E9
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
Well, you can certainly think that way, but Big Bang is the most
compelling model of the creation of universe for physicists. Hubble
redshift of all the galaxies of the universe tells us that the universe
is expanding, and from that, you can tell there must be a point where
everything in the universe was at one point really densed into a point.
From Einstein's theory of general relativity, George Gamsgow modelled
the creation of universe, and predicted the existence of cosmic
microwave background radiation. Which is found, consequentially, the
theory of Big Bang is now the best model at expalining how the universe
has started. There are still few physicists supporting 'steady state'
universe, but it is not exactly the best model that fits all the
observations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Opinion, was there a "Big Bang"? |
12 Feb 2006 12:01:05 AM |
|
|
On 11 Feb 2006 21:10:42 -0800, "gigantul" <gigantul@gmail.com> wrote:
L=F6rd Ph=FFlt=EAr wrote:
I'm of the persuasion that the universe is like a giant lava lamp, matter
ebbing and flowing, stars and planets dying, stars and planets being re-b=
orn,
and this is eternal.
--
L=F6rd Ph=FFlt=EAr
Alt.Atheism #1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attach=E9
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
Well, you can certainly think that way, but Big Bang is the most
compelling model of the creation of universe for physicists. Hubble
redshift of all the galaxies of the universe tells us that the universe
is expanding, and from that, you can tell there must be a point where
everything in the universe was at one point really densed into a point.
Having just learned that the first observer of the redshift was Vesto
Slipher from Indiana I just had to post it. Sounds like some sort of
alien with suction cups on their finger tips and certainly worthy of
having the redshift awareness recognition referenced to him...carry
on...
From Einstein's theory of general relativity, George Gamsgow modelled
the creation of universe, and predicted the existence of cosmic
microwave background radiation. Which is found, consequentially, the
theory of Big Bang is now the best model at expalining how the universe
has started. There are still few physicists supporting 'steady state'
universe, but it is not exactly the best model that fits all the
observations.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gigantul" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Opinion, was there a "Big Bang"? |
11 Feb 2006 11:12:49 PM |
|
|
gigantul wrote:
L=F6rd Ph=FFlt=EAr wrote:
I'm of the persuasion that the universe is like a giant lava lamp, matt=
er
ebbing and flowing, stars and planets dying, stars and planets being re=
-born,
and this is eternal.
--
L=F6rd Ph=FFlt=EAr
Alt.Atheism #1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attach=E9
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
Well, you can certainly think that way, but Big Bang is the most
compelling model of the creation of universe for physicists. Hubble
redshift of all the galaxies of the universe tells us that the universe
is expanding, and from that, you can tell there must be a point where
everything in the universe was at one point really densed into a point.
From Einstein's theory of general relativity, George Gamsgow modelled
the creation of universe, and predicted the existence of cosmic
microwave background radiation. Which is found, consequentially, the
theory of Big Bang is now the best model at expalining how the universe
has started. There are still few physicists supporting 'steady state'
universe, but it is not exactly the best model that fits all the
observations.
oops, it is George Gamow, not Gamsgow. I don't know how this name came
up to my mind..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Opinion, was there a "Big Bang"? |
13 Feb 2006 08:09:06 PM |
|
|
Lörd Phÿltêr wrote:
I'm of the persuasion that the universe is like a giant lava lamp,
matter ebbing and flowing, stars and planets dying, stars and planets
being re-born, and this is eternal.
And this is the seeming evolving understanding
of many cosmologists. Our island Universe is
but a mere example in a Universe that is infinite
and filled with infinite island universe.
As ours expands, and grows old and cold,
eventually another big bang will happen, and
eventually one happens that can have life.
It's just a matter of time...
21 August 2004
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and
get 4 free issues.
Eugenie Samuel Reich
SOMEWHERE in our universe, a new big bang is
waiting to happen. It probably won't go off during
our lifetime, or even during the lifetimes of all
the stars in our galaxy. But then again, it could
happen tomorrow. It could happen on your kitchen
table while you're eating breakfast.
We have never seen any evidence that our universe
has given birth to another one, and we are not
even sure what the event would look like. But that
has not stopped Sean Carroll and Jennifer Chen of
the University of Chicago in Illinois from
calculating the probability that it will happen at
any particular point in space and time. Their
result provides a new number for physicists to
contemplate. It is 1 divided by 10 to the power of
1056; that is, 1 divided by 1 with 100 million
trillion trillion trillion trillion zeros after
it. "It is probably the smallest number in the
history of physics," Carroll says.
It is so small, he points out, that its units are
unimportant. Call it what you want: the chance of
a new universe per cubic metre per day, or the
probability of a big bang per cubic light year per
second. It doesn't really matter which you choose.
There are only 40-odd zeros between a cubic metre
and a cubic light year, for instance: who's going
to quibble about a few dozen zeros among 100
million trillion trillion trillion trillion of
them?
It may seem like a fantastical figure plucked out
of the air, but Carroll and Chen used
well-established physics to find it. They started
from the fact that the galaxies in our universe
are flying apart. Trace them back, and it seems
they came from one small, hot and dense patch of
space-time. The widely accepted theory of
inflation, first proposed by Alan Guth at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, suggests
that this patch blew up immediately after the big
bang to become everything we see today.
Most of the energy that powered this period of
inflation was converted into matter and radiation.
But not all of it: some of the inflationary energy
remains as "vacuum energy", the energy that is
inherent in empty space. This causes space to push
outwards on itself, a phenomenon that astronomers
believe is responsible for the apparent increasing
acceleration of the expansion of our universe (New
Scientist, 11 April 1998, p 26).
It is this vacuum energy that can give rise to a
new universe. The vacuum energy is not a fixed
quantity; quantum mechanics says it fluctuates at
every point in space-time. If there is a sudden,
sharp increase in this energy at some point, that
point will blow up faster than its neighbours. And
if the difference is dramatic enough, it will
create a new big bang.
Carroll and Chen took the measured value of the
vacuum energy of our universe - deduced from
observations of how much the universe's expansion
is accelerating - and used it to calculate the
chance that a quantum fluctuation in the energy of
some patch will happen in just the way needed for
inflation to begin. The uncertainty principle in
quantum mechanics says that fluctuations in the
vacuum energy are random, but that they occur
around the vacuum energy's average value (the
value astronomers measure). The pair calculated
the probability that one of these fluctuations
would be high enough to make the point expand
exponentially fast relative to the rest of the
universe, and so kick off a new universe. Their
result provides a measure of the probability that
a big bang will begin at any particular moment and
location. And, though ridiculously small, it is
not zero: eventually, in an infinite universe, it
will happen.
So what will the new big bang be like?
Unsurprisingly, the experts are not sure. But if
you are unlucky enough to have a new big bang go
off inside you, it seems a fair bet that you won't
survive. That is because the high energy needed to
kick start an inflating universe might well be hot
enough to cause a fatal injury. But if it happens
next to you, on the other hand, you might survive.
You would probably see a flash of energy as the
fluctuation happens. As the region of the
fluctuation begins to inflate, it will expand at
enormous speed, creating more and more space of
its own. Most likely, the frontier of the new
universe will appear to rush away from you
incredibly quickly, moving the wavelength of its
emitted light towards the red end of the spectrum
before it vanishes. "You will see the light
redden, go faint, and disappear," says Alexander
Vilenkin, an expert on inflation at Tufts
University in Somerville, Massachusetts.
However that would only be the case if the outer
boundary of the new universe is expanding much
faster than ours. But it might not be, Vilenkin
says; it is possible that the new universe has
less vacuum energy than ours, and thus will appear
to be a real slowcoach. That would make its
formation look like the collapse of a section of
our universe - much like the formation of a black
hole. "You will be sitting there guessing if there
is something inside or not," Vilenkin says.
Long wait
Of course, it is unlikely any of us will have to
ponder such questions. Although the quantum
fluctuations are entirely random - and so defy
prediction - it is fair to assume that the next
big bang won't happen while we're around to
appreciate it. We are living during a very brief
epoch in the history of our universe, one in which
the matter and radiation still exist. Calculations
show that the mysterious "dark energy" that drives
the expansion of our universe will eventually
drive all the matter and energy far apart,
diluting it so much that the universe becomes a
cold, dark and very lonely place. Just a few
hundred billion years from now, our universe will
be unrecognisable to us - not least because we
won't be able to see most of it (New Scientist, 20
October 2001, p 36).
And, because we now know the probability of a new
big bang at a point in space and time is so low,
we can be fairly sure that our universe will have
to wait until the number of space-time points in
existence is much higher before it happens. That
almost certainly means the big bang won't happen
until long after we have disappeared.
But don't let that put you off looking for it.
Although you're unlikely to open your refrigerator
and catch a new big bang melting the butter, you
shouldn't dismiss the possibility entirely. "It's
a probabilistic process," Vilenkin says. "It can
happen any time."
From issue 2461 of New Scientist magazine, 21
August 2004, page 34
--
"If I saw a man beating a tied up horse, I could
not prove it was wrong, but I'd know it was wrong."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
