| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"flarosa" |
| Date: |
29 May 2007 02:26:54 AM |
| Object: |
What if the Big Bang happened again? |
Suppose there was another Big Bang. Would the end result, billions of
years later, be the same universe in which we now live, with the same
stars and planets? Would life and humans evolve the same way? If not,
why not?
.
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Physically, what's special about 13.7 gigayears ago ? |
29 May 2007 03:53:37 AM |
|
|
Today, we can see back 13.7 gigayears.
Physically, what's special about 13.7 gigayears ago ? Nothing.
Inflation is probably eternal.
The cosmos just forever and always dissipates.
It's spontaneous and irrevocable, Cosmic Entropy.
Like God Almighty, Cosmic Entropy creates/destroys all that is.
But there are lesser gods...
Each is a prisoner to his God and a God to his prisoners.
.
|
|
|
| User: "socratus" |
|
| Title: Re: Physically, what's special about 13.7 gigayears ago ? |
29 May 2007 06:15:33 AM |
|
|
Once upon a time, 14 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons... gluons field ..... etc.) - was assembled in a "single point".
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the "single
point".
The answer is :
EMPTINESS- NOTHING....!!!
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
* * *
Once there was a "Big Bang".
But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big
Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change
and decrease.
What temperature can this radiation reach?
Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING T=0K.
Therefore it is necessary to begin to think from T=0K.
===== ========
About the theory of the "Big Bang" is written the thick (very thick)
books.
But anywhere do not write about the reason of the "Big Bang".
Anybody does not know it.
I know.
Action, when the God opens his palm,
have named the "Big Bang".
And action, when the God compresses his palm,
have named " a single point".
===========================
So, then another Big Bang happen
it will mean, that before the Great God compressed
all matter in the Universy in his palm so strong ,
that this act created " a single point ".
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Physically, there's nothing special about 13.7 gigayears ago. |
29 May 2007 03:42:50 PM |
|
|
Physically, there's nothing special about 13.7 gigayears ago.
" t = 0 " is too metaphysical to be part of any scientific theory,
including the Lambda-CDM model ( a.k.a. the Big Bang ).
We can't " observe " anything before " t = Planck_Time ".
Hell, we can't see anything before " t = .00038 gigayears ".
It's preposterous to imagine that nature, 13.7 gigayears ago,
was affected by what we can observe now, in 2007.
Lambda-CDM implies ( ongoing ) inflation at its start.
If you insist on making the ridiculous assumption that inflation
is not merely Cosmic Entropy ( and, therefore, not eternal )
then you must _ Assign _ it a starting point _ After _ Planck time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Big Bang happened again? |
29 May 2007 02:33:43 AM |
|
|
flarosa wrote:
Suppose there was another Big Bang. Would the end result, billions of
years later, be the same universe in which we now live, with the same
stars and planets? Would life and humans evolve the same way? If not,
why not?
Too many random processes. If you go back a few hundred million years
and let evolution do its thing... we won't be here, but some other life
will be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "flarosa" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Big Bang happened again? |
29 May 2007 08:56:56 AM |
|
|
How does randomness work? If starting conditions are exactly the same,
wouldn't the outcome be the same?
Isn't what we call "randomness" simply a byproduct of there being too
many conditions within a given system for us to predict what will
happen?
The wind seems random, but it is actually driven by physical forces
that can be understood. If one had all the relevant data, one could
predict the wind.
On May 29, 2:33 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Too many random processes. If you go back a few hundred million years
and let evolution do its thing... we won't be here, but some other life
will be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Big Bang happened again? |
29 May 2007 09:13:12 AM |
|
|
"flarosa" <frank@franklarosa.com> wrote in message
news:1180447016.411720.279370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
How does randomness work? If starting conditions are exactly the same,
wouldn't the outcome be the same?
Starting conditions can *never* be *exactly* the same thanks to
quantum effects. Many systems exhibit what is called mathematical
chaos, an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions.
Isn't what we call "randomness" simply a byproduct of there being too
many conditions within a given system for us to predict what will
happen?
No, it's not quite the same thing. Even very simple systems
with a tiny number of parameters can exhibit chaos.
The wind seems random, but it is actually driven by physical forces
that can be understood. If one had all the relevant data, one could
predict the wind.
Only on large scales for short periods of time, and only on average,
not on the tiny scale of, say, individual puffs of wind in the corner
of your back yard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "flarosa" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Big Bang happened again? |
29 May 2007 09:41:26 AM |
|
|
On May 29, 9:13 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
Starting conditions can *never* be *exactly* the same thanks to
quantum effects. Many systems exhibit what is called mathematical
chaos, an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions.
So you're saying that randomness is a physical property of the
universe rather than just an illusion caused by our failure to
completely understand the starting conditions?
I come from a computer background. In computers we often simulate
randomness by taking some starting number and performing a series of
obtuse calculations on it each time we want a new "random" number. To
the user the results seem random, but if the program were run twice
with the same starting number, the results would be exactly the same.
It's hard to believe that the universe is inherently random. It's
easier to believe that there are simply too many things going on in
parallel for us to predict what will happen next.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Big Bang happened again? |
29 May 2007 09:54:07 AM |
|
|
"flarosa" <frank@franklarosa.com> wrote in message
news:1180449686.916168.70030@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 9:13 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
Starting conditions can *never* be *exactly* the same thanks to
quantum effects. Many systems exhibit what is called mathematical
chaos, an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions.
So you're saying that randomness is a physical property of the
universe rather than just an illusion caused by our failure to
completely understand the starting conditions?
Yup, that's it in a nutshell.
I come from a computer background. In computers we often simulate
randomness by taking some starting number and performing a series of
obtuse calculations on it each time we want a new "random" number. To
the user the results seem random, but if the program were run twice
with the same starting number, the results would be exactly the same.
Yes, that's true. Although there do exist gadgets that produce
random numbers based upon, for example, radioactive decays that
a computer can read via an I/O port.
It's hard to believe that the universe is inherently random. It's
easier to believe that there are simply too many things going on in
parallel for us to predict what will happen next.
Belief does not a universe make. Quantum physics is inherently
contrary to our "common sense" desires for an orderly, causative,
and predictable universe. Attempts to fudge away the quantum
effects with hidden variables (google "hidden variables") have
failed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Big Bang happened again? |
29 May 2007 02:15:59 PM |
|
|
On May 29, 9:41 am, flarosa <f...@franklarosa.com> wrote:
On May 29, 9:13 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
Starting conditions can *never* be *exactly* the same thanks to
quantum effects. Many systems exhibit what is called mathematical
chaos, an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions.
So you're saying that randomness is a physical property of the
universe rather than just an illusion caused by our failure to
completely understand the starting conditions?
Yes. The universe apparently is not deterministic.
By "deterministic", I mean that with the same initial conditions and
the same physical laws, one should expect the same outcomes. Quantum
mechanics and experiment has shown us that there are aspects of nature
that are intrinsically nondeterministic.
I come from a computer background. In computers we often simulate
randomness by taking some starting number and performing a series of
obtuse calculations on it each time we want a new "random" number. To
the user the results seem random, but if the program were run twice
with the same starting number, the results would be exactly the same.
And that's because computers as presently designed are strictly
deterministic, and so you have to fake randomness with pseudorandom
generators. This does not mean that nature has the same constraints.
Note that one of the best computer-generated random number machines
uses visual information from a Lava Lamp.
It's hard to believe that the universe is inherently random. It's
easier to believe that there are simply too many things going on in
parallel for us to predict what will happen next.
Nature is suprising and quite often does things that we find hard to
believe. That's why we have such firm rules about experimental
evidence to check where our intuition is out of line.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "boson boss" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Big Bang happened again? |
29 May 2007 04:47:11 PM |
|
|
On May 29, 3:56 pm, flarosa <f...@franklarosa.com> wrote:
How does randomness work? If starting conditions are exactly the same,
wouldn't the outcome be the same?
Isn't what we call "randomness" simply a byproduct of there being too
many conditions within a given system for us to predict what will
happen?
The wind seems random, but it is actually driven by physical forces
that can be understood. If one had all the relevant data, one could
predict the wind.
Right right, all those rules you know so well, ... and then one day
into distance, far away from all that microscopic scale do you see a
Fog or smiling face of heavenly father? So its a fog, and pure
statistics.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Big Bang happened again? |
29 May 2007 10:17:29 AM |
|
|
flarosa wrote:
How does randomness work? If starting conditions are exactly the same,
wouldn't the outcome be the same?
o asteroid and comet impacts
o outbursts from the sun
o chaos
o uncertainty principle
o radioactivity, cosmic ray -- genetic mutations
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Big Bang happened again? |
29 May 2007 02:30:21 AM |
|
|
flarosa wrote:
Suppose there was another Big Bang. Would the end result, billions of
years later, be the same universe in which we now live, with the same
stars and planets? Would life and humans evolve the same way? If not,
why not?
We don't know.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
