BS: What went Big Bang?

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 01:26 PM

On the big Bang theory:

"For every one billion particles of antimatter there were one billion and one particles of matter. And when the mutual annihilation was complete, one billionth remained - and that's our present universe." Albert Einstein

"A universe that came from nothing in the big bang will disappear into nothing at the big crunch. Its glorious few zillion years of existence not even a memory."
Paul Davies

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 10:59 AM

A lot about the Big Bang is speculation, and evolving different theories.   My understanding, from what I have read,   is many theories speculate that a black hole and the big bang are/ were much different. The Big Bang is thought to have been a singularity extending through all space at a single instant (more like a white hole, if they exist). A black hole is a singularity extending through all time at a single point. With the Big bang, the space near the singularity is flat rather than being tightly curved with a black hole.

I don't believe researchers figured out what happens to the entropy of matter falling into a black hole, which involves quantum mechanics and strong gravity.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 10:58 AM

Maybe it was a case of an American Moderator not understanding daft British Humour? :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 07:49 AM

I am infinitely exercised as to why my rejoinder to Backwoodsman's speculations about belly-fluff & reality tv should have been deleted.

What did I SAY, Joe, that was so intolerable?

Genuinely puzzled!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 07:37 AM

Further to my 'great thoughts' ('great thunks'?) on information and the Big Bang I would tentatively like to express my very, very, very limited understanding of the work of Stephen Hawking. Through considering the phenomena of black holes (gravitationally collapsed stars) Hawking explored the link between entropy (the thermodynamic measure of the amount of disorder in a system) and information. A completely disordered sytem has infinite entropy and no information can be extracted from it. If no light can escape from within the event horizon of a black hole then no information can escape either and we can't possibly know anything about whatever it is that lurks beyond the event horizon. Therefore a black hole (or rather the singularity within it) is identical to a system with infinite entropy. The region within an event horizon is like a piece of text in which all the letters which make it up have been completely scrambled and the meaning of the text can never be recovered.

What's that noise? Oh dear, it's lots of physicists rolling around on the floor making strange noises ... I can't make out whether they're laughing or crying ... ?

Anyway, if a singularity existed before the Big Bang it was probably a completely disordered system and we can't possibly know anything about it - there is just no information left.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 12:12 AM

@*%~ing Hell! S-T-R-I-C-T-L-Y!!

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 12:10 AM

Don't you people have any cupboards to clean out? Shoes to polish? Belly-buttons to de-fluff? Or maybe watch 'Stictly'? :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 11:42 PM

Stringsinger — thank you for your last contribution. But I didn't ask what it WASN'T : I asked what it WAS.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 08:15 PM

Waves ( or perturbations) such as fluctuations in the density of subatomic particles and distortions in space and time (gravity waves) caused by cosmic inflation...as projected under (current) big bang theories.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: 3refs
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 08:11 PM

The "what" was not some metaphysical entity or "spirit".

And why not?

As has been said many times "the absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence"!

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 07:35 PM

"Big bang" is a metaphor. Actually, it was reputed to be soundless. It was a tiny element.

Since nobody was around at the time, there are no written records.

It has to be shown by scientific explanations through cosmology. Inferences
can be made through the history of cosmology and the development of the science.

The theories can be googled easily.

The "what" was not some metaphysical entity or "spirit".

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 06:30 PM

Imagine the initial explosion when everything that could get canceled out like matter and anti matter went bang.

The way things turned out seems to have left us with more matter left over than antimatter. Also there is more dark matter than matter.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 05:40 PM

"Sorry Shimrod. I perceive not the least similarity. Not even "a bit".

Pray expound."

Perhaps, MtheGM, what I was groping towards is something like this (pure speculation, of course): if you consider any period of history before you were born you can't really imagine fully what it was like to live at that time. You can build a good model, epecially if the time that you choose to imagine is within recorded history, but it can never be complete. If you go back even further, beyond the boundaries of recorded history you have less information and must rely to a greater extent on speculation; to take a rather crude example we know quite a bit about the physiology dinosaurs, from their fossilised remains, but we can't know what colour they were or what, if any, sounds they made - the information has been lost. Perhaps if you go far enough back ('before the big bang' - if such phrase has any meaning)there is no information available at all so we can't possibly 'know' anything.

And the future, especially after our deaths, is the same - no information. Does that make sense?

I think I'm going to have to rest for a bit now!

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 02:04 PM

'And the future, especially after our deaths, is the same - no information. Does that make sense?"

Yes, Shimrod, ir makes perfect intrinsic sense. It provides a good answer; but I am not sure to which question — not quite to the one I began with [affording, as one might say, the BigBang to this thread - just call me Yahweh!] — or, anyhow, only tangentially. I think: ( ∴ This Thread Is... ??? )

;~)

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 01:56 PM

Clarification, if possible:

When I said "to transfer sound" I really meant "to transfer something (energy?) in waves".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 01:51 PM

Ed T's comment was:

There was likely no sound, as most of outer space has no atmosphere yo transfer it. But, likely many other variety of waves.

Waves in what medium? Everything that would qualify to transfer sound is part of the existence that the BB is making.

So yes, there would be turbulence (perhaps in the form of waves) in the matter/energy that was just now created, but not in anything else that might be in advance of the expanding BB-front.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: 3refs
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 06:57 AM

Some very good theories and comments, but it's time to be honest!

It was building materials!

"In my Father's house are many mansions"

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Arthur Stiffy
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 11:56 PM

fun games to play:

1. imagine you can see every single atom that comprises yourself
and all surrounding matter as wide and far as your brain can cope with.

2. now focus your thoughts down on the mysterious nuclear centres of all of them godzillerions of tiny little bugger atoms..

3. just consider the possibility they all each contain an entire universe..

4. and you are actually sat right in the middle of one of them..

or several.. or all of 'em..

5. and them bloody great big distant black holes is the only way in or out, or between 'em..

6. stop thinking about it now before it sends you mental
and you suddenly disappear up your own black hole never to be seen or heard from again...

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 11:23 PM

'"MtheGM' asks, "What went Big Bang?" This is a bit like asking "where was MtheGM in 1066 and where will he be in 2066?"

Sorry Shimrod. I perceive not the least similarity. Not even "a bit".

Pray expound.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 05:53 PM

There was likely no sound, as most of outer space has no atmosphere yo transfer it. But, likely many other variety of waves.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 05:47 PM

MtheGM' asks, "What went Big Bang?" This is a bit like asking "where was MtheGM in 1066 and where will he be in 2066?" Some questions don't have answers.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 03:56 PM

The initial sound was more of a "BOIOIOIOIOINNNNGG!!!!!" with "SPLATTTT!!!!" harmonics.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 03:27 PM

"Singularities need not be infintessimal"
True

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 12:37 PM

Singularities need not be infintessimal. A super massive black hole could have an event horizon as big as our sun or larger but inside the funneling down to the singularity inside could be a rather large pipe indeed. Not to be mathmaticly accurate but the singularity in the SMBH could have the diameter of your head. Each cubic centimeter could have the mass of the Earth right before it passes out of our space time into...

A white hole somewhere else...a new universe of its own...an explosion some'when' else ????

they say you should never say never but,
there will never be a human witness to where 'it' goes.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 11:42 AM

Heck...math is fine! If some abstruse theoretical implication can't satisfy the math, it has problems.

"If this helps them secure funding, so much the better"

Yup.... it's hard to make a Discovery Channel program based on complex equations!

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 11:35 AM

To expand on what Micca said,

The "true" language of modern science is mathematics.

Mathematics far beyond what the general public can ever hope to comprehend.

For examle, check out "Wave equation" in the wikipedia. Keep reading until your brain locks up.

What consistently amazes me is that modern scientists are masters of pr.

With some wonderful choices of terminology, e.g., "quark", "singularity", "black hole", "big bang", etc., their talk about this mind boggling abstruse mathematics is endlessly fascinating to the general publc.

They are also really good at benignly misleading the public. For example, they usually "forget" to make it clear that the time they are talking about is an item in a mathematical equation rather than the time we ordinary mortals have to deal with. This leads too all the delicious "paradoxes" that are also endlessly fascinating the to general public.

If this helps them secure funding, so much the better.

Russ (Permanent GUEST and former math major)

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 10:22 AM

What if it was like Groundhog day, the movie?

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 10:03 AM

....maybe Alice really DID step through the Looking Glass.....

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,*.ripov
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 11:09 PM

Maybe what went bang was absolutely nothing and there's a positive bit going in a positive direction in however many dimensions there are which we think is us and a negative bit going in a negative direction and if you add it all up there's still nothing?

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 10:39 PM

"Maybe There is no 'There' there"
Scientists cant tell us much about what happened during and before the Big Bang. Time itself may not have existed. All of our logicis based on time and chains of events or states.   'What happened before the Big Bang to start it, what made up the pre Big Bang Universe are questions with no firm answers. This is because we are theoratially exploring the extreme limits of our universe, our knowledge, our logic and our scientific theories.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 09:57 PM

If one tries to understand the creation of the universe, in terms of what we observe every day on Earth, we get confused. Before the big bang, the smaller space was filled up with concentrated matter, which began to expand"
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 06:26 PM

"...I still demand: a 'singularity', however infintessimal, of WHAT?"

Why not just something like Whitehead's 'actual entities'?

Since we are playing with theories, his comes as close to addressing the issue as most of the straight 'physics' answers.....maybe closer.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 06:17 PM

But back to my question of much earlier, isn't the Big Bang no longer the dominant theory for the "beginning" of the universe?

Nice limerick!

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 11:55 PM

Talking of which — I think it might be OK here to reproduce a limerick which I have already put on the above-line limerick thread; AFAIK actually composed by a very brilliant former pupil of mine called David Williams at Chesterton School Cambridge in the 1980s for the newsletter of the school Astronomical Society he founded [he was that sort of pupil you get to your delight every now & then - all teachers reading this will know what I mean!]:—

Apollo to Mission Control
We are almost in reach of our goal
But this reading of G
Seems excessive to me
And I think we are near a black

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 11:48 PM

OK, thanks Ed — but, I still demand: a 'singularity', however infintessimal, of WHAT?

And thanks to you too for your kind words, Joyce xxx. We do out little best...

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 10:27 PM

And....Singularities are also believed to exist at the center of black holes.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 10:26 PM

BTY, A singularity is point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume (an object so small that there is no way to see them or to measure them, and space and time to become infinitely distorted).

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 10:19 PM

The ex·pand·ing universe theory contends that the universe is expanding, based on the interpretation of the color shift in the spectra of all the galaxies as being the result of the Doppler effect and indicating that all galaxies are moving away from one another. This was from a violent eruption from a singularity that led to the formation of elementary particles, the subsequent formation of hydrogen and helium, and the dispersion of the galaxies from these elements. This supported The Big bang theory, that the universe originated from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature.

The formerly accepted "steady state theory" contends that the universe has always expanded at a uniform rate with no beginning or end, that it will continue to expand and have constant density, and that the distribution of old and new objects in the universe is basically even. The theory has been largely abandoned in favor of the big bang theory, largely due to the discovery of quasars and other entities that appear only at very great distances, suggesting an absolute relationship between the age of objects and their distance. The steady state theory was also discredited by the discovery of cosmic background radiation, which was predicted by the big bang theory but not by the steady state theory.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: sing4peace
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 09:16 PM

I once looked up at the stars, felt a brief moment of panic as I contemplated infinity and had a flash of understanding:

I have limitted RAM. I cannot compute an infinite sum.

So I started to ponder other ponders, currently: who put the bop in the bop she bop she bop?

Great thread Michael.

Peace to ya,
Joyce

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 09:13 PM

Naw, I have never published. I only have hard drives of story lines and plots that I know will never be expanded. When I have submitted I have seen parrallel screen plays come out the following year or two. These things are in the "leaking" wind I guess.

What I liked about that story line is that all the characters that are seen earlier as poor souls or the rich and powerful who were so ridgid they could not change their mistaken course despite the fact they knew many would suffer along with themselves. In the end you realize that they are the ones whose technology allowed them to relive a past with no free will.

I know of no actual physics that could justify this story line but if it is done well enough to suspend belief, then its worth the revelation at the end.




When discussing the big bang the thing that the Bible's Genesis got right is that the early universe was indeed dark and only after hydrogen atoms had cooled enough and condensed together from gravity did the first stars bring light.

The Tao, Hindu texts, and Buddist teachings also have many good outlines of grand cosmological probabilities/possiblities.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 11:15 PM

Descartes in a bar is asked if he'd like a beer. He answered, "I think not." And he disappeared.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 10:31 PM

Jesse? or Frank? I think they both did. Robert Ford only went 'bang'.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:42 PM

I understand that chitty-chitty went bang bang. Or maybe that was James.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: 3refs
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:52 PM

"The problem (one of the many problems) with this idea is that not only can one not know that a thing exists when it is not being perceived, but that other people may not exist as well. This must, of necessity, lead to solipsism, the belief that one is the only conscious entity in the universe. Or, for that matter, than beyond one's own consciousness, the universe itself does not exist".

This is all under the assumption that "WE" are the only beings on the planet that are capable of awareness, comprehension and a beleif that something may happen in the future!

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:50 PM

The error, I submit, lies in not disentangling the realm of agreements from the realm of perception, and these from the quality of persistence which we attribute, by agreement, to physical forms.

The mechanism of agreement has a strong bearing on what reality CAN be perceived or not. This is why people sometimes get a whole lot better when they discover agreements they were sucked into under duress.

A

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:35 PM

Interesting concept, Donuel. I can see where the things that Michio Kaku has detailed in his books can provide the basis for writers of fantasy being able to make a fair claim that what they are writing is not fantasy but hard science fiction.

Keep me posted on how it's coming along. Is it published anywhere?

####

Without an observer there can be no observed. They also are dependent on one another. One can theorize the existence of various "things" without any observer...but one cannot experience them that way, therefore it remains theoretical whether or not anything exists in the absence of an observer.

This was the philosophical position of Bishop George Berkeley (pronounced "BARK-lee") (1685 –1753).

This idea is sometimes enunciated as "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" By extension, "Does the tree exist if no one perceives it? Or the forest?"

The problem (one of the many problems) with this idea is that not only can one not know that a thing exists when it is not being perceived, but that other people may not exist as well. This must, of necessity, lead to solipsism, the belief that one is the only conscious entity in the universe. Or, for that matter, than beyond one's own consciousness, the universe itself does not exist.

Philosophical dilemma:   Either what appears to me as the objective universe exists for me because it is in the mind of God (necessitating a belief in God)—or that external to me, none of it exists, including God, leading to the inevitable conclusion that I am the only perceiver.   Ergo:   I AM God.

Therein lies madness.

Berkeley's denial of objective reality would render science and scientific pursuits meaningless, which was part of the idea. He felt that the work of Sir Isaac Newton, including his and Leibniz' work on calculus (not to mention the earlier discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo regarding a heliocentric rather than an earth-centered universe, along with more recent discoveries) tended to distance Christians from God. Tsk tsk! Can't allow that!!

Berkeley's philosophy leads to a complete scientific and philosphical dead end. Not to mention the potential for either megalomania or abject hopelessness.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 01:22 PM

Don Firth,

Regarding your idea of "leakage"

I thought you might be interested in a story of mine in which this 'leakage' is perceived best by certain people. Those who are good at it, go on to develop a free will ability to move over into the universe in which they continue to survive or be relatively more successful. Its sort of like the saying a cat has nine lives.
This could also account for the poor miserable souls we see since they may have died, or worse, in all the other possible dimensions, or simply because they did not have the ability to transmogrify.

Over millenia some intelligent beings aid their dimensional travel between or to other lives with technology, while some just do it "naturally". T

he story concerns the last remaining souls living their last dimensional lives and are all concentrated in one particular universe. Invention explodes exponentially and an epoch of incredible technology that advances beyond magic in just 100 years.

The quest for immortality for both the natural dimensional travelers and those aided by technology reaches a fever pitch but in the end, both must succumb to running out of turns and die. While those who relied on technology still pass away they pass into lives reliving the past which has aspects of the frustrations of hell, reliving lives that have no free will.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 01:16 PM

A star up there goes nova---and we are here to see it and take note.

Here and now, we are simply "noticing" the results of the big bang. That, only because the bang, eventually, made our evolved presence able to perceive it's fallout.

If, on the other hand, our own sun would go nova, we most probably would be deprived of our ability to notice anything at all. A moot point then?? No. It would then be up to others 'out there' to see and make sense out of.

The big bang is just a larger cosmic occurrence.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 12:49 PM

Basicly what I have just written is what Amos said but in terms that a 5th grader can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 12:47 PM

proposing "before time" and "outside space" are oxymoronic propositions, defying their own terminology.

Hmmmph--I think this says in 13 words what Dave says in forty.

But it is a good answer,Dave!!



A