| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"conrad" |
| Date: |
28 Apr 2007 12:09:56 PM |
| Object: |
possible big bang misconception |
When people discuss the big bang, you often hear
someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'?
And while such a question marks the start of
an argument from ignorance, I'm inclined
to think that such a question exhibits some
misconception.
What is the currently held view in relation to this?
I've read that the start of the big bang was due to a
collision(I suppose a collision taking place in a higher
dimension?) and producing this three dimensional
result(our universe).
Thoughts?
--
conrad
.
|
|
| User: "Quantum_Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
28 Apr 2007 02:25:44 PM |
|
|
On 28 Apr, 19:09, conrad <con...@lawyer.com> wrote:
When people discuss the big bang, you often hear
someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'?
Well how does one get nothing from something?..you take it away
"from".
So to get "something from nothing" you add it "to".
So it depends on what you do to "add" or take "away", for instance
numbers are representative of things, 1,3,5 or 10 means something is
there, while zero, -1,-3,-5 or -10 means that something is not there?
Anti Matter and Matter are just "two" of the things to come from the
Big Bang.
Anti Matter is not here, whilst Matter is here. We have to create Anti
Matter from Matter, so in this sense we have to get something (matter/
here), from nothing (Anti-Matter/ thats not here).
One of the conceptual difficulties for the big-bang, according to
Einstein's GR, is that you cannot destroy or create Energy, but you
can move it from one place to another(just like moving numbers around
in an equation, you get permutations).
What is really interesting from this perspective is that you can
reduce/reverse?.. the Universe down to a "big-bang" and one finds a
Bounce, so the previous Universe is a finite remnant quantity, that
translates into this Universe. So just as relativity predicts, there
was a little bit left from the "previous" Universe, so there was not
actually a "nothing"..there was a finite almost zero/nothing...
something?
Nature does not destroy previous Universe's, they get recycled into
new ones.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
28 Apr 2007 11:23:39 PM |
|
|
Time colides with time at some point time overlaps time and something
exsist in the same place at the same time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
30 Apr 2007 12:05:09 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 1:09 pm, conrad <con...@lawyer.com> wrote:
When people discuss the big bang, you often hear
someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'?
And while such a question marks the start of
an argument from ignorance, I'm inclined
to think that such a question exhibits some
misconception.
What is the currently held view in relation to this?
I've read that the start of the big bang was due to a
collision(I suppose a collision taking place in a higher
dimension?) and producing this three dimensional
result(our universe).
Thoughts?
--
conrad
That sort of presupposes time existing outside the universe.
You might as well ask, if the universe is finite in dimension, then
what's on the other side of the edge of it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "boson boss" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
28 Apr 2007 05:07:13 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 7:09 pm, conrad <con...@lawyer.com> wrote:
When people discuss the big bang, you often hear
someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'?
And while such a question marks the start of
an argument from ignorance, I'm inclined
to think that such a question exhibits some
misconception.
What is the currently held view in relation to this?
I've read that the start of the big bang was due to a
collision(I suppose a collision taking place in a higher
dimension?) and producing this three dimensional
result(our universe).
Thoughts?
--
conrad
I think you don;t have the stomach to bear the idea big bang had a
date. And that date, the only recollection of perfection fades into
impossible as the time itself began on the glorious day.
:-))
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dedanoe" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
28 Apr 2007 10:34:26 PM |
|
|
conrad =ED=E0=EF=E8=F8=E0:
When people discuss the big bang, you often hear
someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'?
And while such a question marks the start of
an argument from ignorance, I'm inclined
to think that such a question exhibits some
misconception.
What is the currently held view in relation to this?
I've read that the start of the big bang was due to a
collision(I suppose a collision taking place in a higher
dimension?) and producing this three dimensional
result(our universe).
Thoughts?
--
conrad
1 x 1 =3D 2 x 0.5 =3D 4 x 0.25 =3D 8 x 0.125 =3D ... =3D All x Nothing
it reads: Big Bang is result of collision between All (Yang) and
Nothing (Yin). I am part of the universe as much the univarse is part
of me! My Natasha is also part of the universe as much the universe is
part of her! I am All in Nothing and she is Nothing in All. Our
collision, love and sex will give birth of the new universe - OUR
SUPERMAN! This may coincide with the doom of planet Earth - Armageddon!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
28 Apr 2007 03:45:51 PM |
|
|
conrad wrote:
When people discuss the big bang, you often hear
someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'?
And while such a question marks the start of
an argument from ignorance, I'm inclined
to think that such a question exhibits some
misconception.
What is the currently held view in relation to this?
I've read that the start of the big bang was due to a
collision(I suppose a collision taking place in a higher
dimension?) and producing this three dimensional
result(our universe).
Thoughts?
--
conrad
The big bang says that the observable universe was smaller, hotter
and denser in the past.
For ideas about "how can something come from nothing?" see:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=541
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
28 Apr 2007 11:32:29 PM |
|
|
If they understood dark energy is photons from outside the visible
universe and passed us at c with no wavelength in our time .
No two things are at the same place at the same time .
Or part of the time ...is time colides with time.
No two points in space are at the same time.
Time its self becomes a strait line at one end of the time line and a
constant univesal rate at the center of the time line .
The visible universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: " infinitely redshifted " photons, here, today. |
29 Apr 2007 12:38:05 AM |
|
|
You, Dr. Tao, wrote, " If they understood that
dark energy is photons from outside the visible universe
and passed us at c with no wavelength in our time. ".
We can see photons ( from the C.M.B. ) that
came from the surface of a 3-D sphere
that is, as we speak, 45 Giga_Light_Years away.
In the known Universe, 4-D spacetime
( if you can imagine that, I can't )
is expanding all the time, accruing its " 4-D volume ".
4-D space is like the frames of a 3-D movie,
it's static, immobile, immutable... it's all there " at once ".
So I think you're talking about
" infinitely redshifted " photons, here, today,
from beyond the birth of the C.M.B., 45 Giga_Light_Years away.
Right ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
28 Apr 2007 07:41:55 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 2:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
conrad wrote:
When people discuss the big bang, you often hear
someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'?
And while such a question marks the start of
an argument from ignorance, I'm inclined
to think that such a question exhibits some
misconception.
What is the currently held view in relation to this?
I've read that the start of the big bang was due to a
collision(I suppose a collision taking place in a higher
dimension?) and producing this three dimensional
result(our universe).
Thoughts?
--
conrad
The big bang says that the observable universe was smaller, hotter
and denser in the past.
For ideas about "how can something come from nothing?" see:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=541
Ha, ha
You're probably reading the above hoping
you'll get an idea.
You won't.
Smaller, hotter, and denser than what?
Than what it used to be?
Maybe when you were little, your Dad
put you against a wall somewhere and made
a mark (on the wall). Then a few years later you stood at the
same place and- hey!- you were taller than the mark.
What mark are you putting today's universe against?
Sam, listen, Universe means _everything_.
If everything gets bigger YOU CAN'T TELL!!!!
THERE IS NOTHING TO COMPARE IT TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We may have to change the name from
sci.physics to sci.stupid just for you.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
30 Apr 2007 02:07:25 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 7:41 pm, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On Apr 28, 2:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
conrad wrote:
When people discuss the big bang, you often hear
someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'?
And while such a question marks the start of
an argument from ignorance, I'm inclined
to think that such a question exhibits some
misconception.
What is the currently held view in relation to this?
I've read that the start of the big bang was due to a
collision(I suppose a collision taking place in a higher
dimension?) and producing this three dimensional
result(our universe).
Thoughts?
--
conrad
The big bang says that the observable universe was smaller, hotter
and denser in the past.
For ideas about "how can something come from nothing?" see:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=541
Ha, ha
You're probably reading the above hoping
you'll get an idea.
You won't.
Smaller, hotter, and denser than what?
Than what it used to be?
Maybe when you were little, your Dad
put you against a wall somewhere and made
a mark (on the wall). Then a few years later you stood at the
same place and- hey!- you were taller than the mark.
What mark are you putting today's universe against?
Sam, listen, Universe means _everything_.
If everything gets bigger YOU CAN'T TELL!!!!
THERE IS NOTHING TO COMPARE IT TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good question. Fortunately, we're not measuring the size of the
universe against a past measured size. That is, we're not using a
Marks-a-Lot and a vertical piece of wood in the garage, like what your
Dad did.
Instead, what we're doing is the equivalent of your Dad doing the
following:
1. Your Dad takes a reference point (say, your navel) and then
measures the *speed* of other landmarks on you away from the navel:
your armpits, your knees, your fingertips, your ankles, your eyes, the
tops of your ears. He has to have an instrument sensitive to this
speed, of course.
2. Your Dad notices that the future the feature away from the navel,
the larger the speed of recession. The two are in fact proportional.
3. Your Dad concludes several things from these observations:
- that you are expanding uniformly;
- that these observations would remain exactly the same if any
reference point other than the navel had been chosen;
- that these observations in no way imply that the navel is at rest
(with respect to anything, really).
4. Furthermore, your Dad can extrapolate from these speed
measurements, and assuming a constant rate of growth, the date when
you had no size at all.
Once more, just to hammer it in, at no time did your Dad have to
measure your total size to arrive at any of the concusions above, nor
would he have to measure your size at any date in the future. All he
needs to know is the present distance to certain landmarks and their
speed away from an arbitrary reference point.
PD
We may have to change the name from
sci.physics to sci.stupid just for you.
John- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
30 Apr 2007 03:56:22 PM |
|
|
On Apr 30, 2:07 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
2. Your Dad notices that the future the feature away from the navel,
Typo: "future" => "further"
the larger the speed of recession. The two are in fact proportional.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
28 Apr 2007 11:19:52 PM |
|
|
malibu wrote:
If everything gets bigger YOU CAN'T TELL!!!!
THERE IS NOTHING TO COMPARE IT TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John, can you tell if this is increasing or decreasing?
http://fun.drno.de/flash/hand.swf
If so, how?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
28 Apr 2007 10:34:22 PM |
|
|
malibu wrote:
On Apr 28, 2:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
The big bang says that the observable universe was smaller, hotter
and denser in the past.
Smaller, hotter, and denser than what?
Than what it used to be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
28 Apr 2007 11:11:32 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 9:34 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
On Apr 28, 2:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
The big bang says that the observable universe was smaller, hotter
and denser in the past.
Smaller, hotter, and denser than what?
Than what it used to be?
I'll bet you are shorter than you
used to be. This is because gravity _pushes_
down on your discs in your spinal column,
flattening them. It is also because your spinal curvature is becoming
more pronounced. This is not due to gravity; it is due to disease
processes
that our (not my, your) diet is enabling.
You're probably not hotter- for the
same reasons- chicks like a good posture.
But denser- not possible.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
28 Apr 2007 02:00:09 PM |
|
|
conrad wrote:
When people discuss the big bang, you often hear
someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'?
And while such a question marks the start of
an argument from ignorance, I'm inclined
to think that such a question exhibits some
misconception.
What is the currently held view in relation to this?
I've read that the start of the big bang was due to a
collision(I suppose a collision taking place in a higher
dimension?) and producing this three dimensional
result(our universe).
Thoughts?
When Apollo farted the other gods took offense. One of
them opened a window to "the unresolved universe" and
fanned the fart out the window, promptly shutting it
once the stench was gone.
And here we are.
There are many other windows in the world of the gods.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: possible big bang misconception |
30 Apr 2007 10:21:12 AM |
|
|
conrad wrote:
When people discuss the big bang, you often hear
someone remark 'how can something come from nothing'?
And while such a question marks the start of
an argument from ignorance, I'm inclined
to think that such a question exhibits some
misconception.
It does. The principle that "something can't come from nothing" is a part of
the physical laws of this universe, not something logically prior. Even the
idea of "coming from" is peculiar to a universe with time. Believing that
the universe must have had a cause is like believing that the Earth can't be
spherical because people would fall off the bottom.
I've read that the start of the big bang was due to a
collision(I suppose a collision taking place in a higher
dimension?) and producing this three dimensional
result(our universe).
The big bang cosmos that we observe might be part of a larger universe, and
might have a cause within that larger universe. People have speculated about
various mechanisms, including the one you just mentioned (called the
ekpyrotic scenario), but no one really knows anything.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
