Home | Community | Message Board


Kratom Eye
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblelukeboots
fresh futuristic
Male User Gallery
Registered: 02/04/04
Posts: 19,728
Loc: Grand Ole Operating Syste...
A very simple theory on the Big Bang *DELETED*
    #2843050 - 06/30/04 11:33 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Post deleted by jonnywax

Reason for deletion: ~



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHuehuecoyotl
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 10,329
Loc: On the Border
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: lukeboots]
    #2843351 - 06/30/04 01:45 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Actually the big bang supposes chaos from order. In a singularity there is perfect order. The energy is a high level form of energy and it is homogenous. After the big bang the level of order started to decrease as energy degraded from nuclear energy into solid matter, light, heat, and cosmic rays. The second law of thermodynamics bears this out. It states that the level of entropy increases with time. According to this thinking the universe (which is a closed system) will eventually degrade to cold rocks and x-rays. We were born of chaos...not order. Though, Stephen Hawking, the man who came up with the big bang, would tell you that the big bang itself is irrelevant to the structure of our universe because if it did occur it occurred before the creation of the universe. Anything that occurs before the moment of creation may as well not have happened. For more info refer to "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking and "The Second Law" by P.W. Atkins.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSource
Remainder of anUnbalancedEquation
Male

Registered: 07/28/03
Posts: 667
Loc: Outer Darkness
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #2843454 - 06/30/04 02:16 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Just for the record...I don't think it was Stephen Hawking who 'came up with the big bang'. I don't remember who first postulated the idea but I believe it was a natural outcome of the realization that the universe is expanding based upon Hubble's discovery of redshifted galaxies.


--------------------
What you're searching for is what's searching.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,377
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: lukeboots]
    #2843469 - 06/30/04 02:22 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Ok, a couple points I need to make:

The Big Bang theory is not a theory about the creation of the Universe...it is a theory to describe what happened during the earliest moments of the universe. Many people confuse this with the actual creation of the Universe...but that is false.

The Big Bang theory was formed after Hubble's observation that the Universe is expanding in every direction. Before his discovery (which may be one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time) it was assumed that the Universe was static and unchanging on a large scale. Einstein even "fudged" his General Theory of Relativity to show this, because when he first came up with the theory it predicted a changing Universe...not a static one. He added the "cosmological constant" to his theory which caused gravity to act as a repulsive force over VERY large distances. It was supposed to counteract the local effect of gravity and stop the Universe from collapsing in on itself. Einstein said, after Hubble's discovery, that the cosmological constant was the greatest mistake of his life. He immediately removed it from the theory.

Until the past couple decades, most physicists would scoff at the idea of discussing what happened "before" the Big Bang. There is no point in doing so, they would say, because Time itself did not exist...the entire concept of "before" makes no sense. Things have changed in recent years. Now we have the Inflationary Cosmology framework to show us that the "bang" did not actually occur at time 0...so we can certainly discuss what went on during the brief moments "before the bang". String theory also steps in and says that there is a lower-limit on how small a dimension can be curled: the smallest possible diameter is the Planck Lenght (1.6 x 10^-35 meters). This is the case because the physics of the Universe behave exactly the same with dimensions curled smaller than the Planck Length as it does with dimensions curled larger than this length. A universe with tightly curled dimensions behaves as the inverse of a universe with large, uncurled dimensions. In effect, this creates a sort of "rebound" effect as dimensions are curled up beyond the Planck Length.

So, let's roll the clock back and take a look at what happens:

Everything behaves exactly as it does now all the way back to a fraction of a second ATB (after the bang). At that point, energy density (and thus temperature) becomes so high that two of the four funamental forces of nature (EM and weak nuclear) "merge" into one force: the Electroweak Force. Roll the clock back a few more fractions of a second, and the Electroweak force combines with the Strong Nuclear force. At this point there are only TWO fundamental forces: that of the combined EM/weak/strong forces, and the force of Gravity. During this brief moment, gravity does not behave the way it does now: instead it acts as a strong repulsive force (remember Einstein's cosmological constant?) which pushes every part of the Universe away from every other part. This is what we now consider to be the "bang" part of the Big Bang. It cause an enormous increase in the rate of expansion of the universe, and for the next fraction of a second the Universe expanded in size by a factor that is greater than the factor of expansion ever since! This is truely a "big bang"...but notice it is NOT the "moment of creation" that so many people have confused the Big Bang for. If we continue to roll the clock back we would see the two forces merge again into one Unified Force. A fraction of a second before that, the size of the Universe was about equal to the Planck Length...at this point our best physics break down and we get nonsensical answers. String theory is starting to suggest that, at this point, the Universe was actually in a state of contraction. It contracted to the Planck Length and "rebounded" into an expanding universe (which we see today).

As you can see, we are now beginning to get an idea of what went on "before the big bang". As with any new theory, there are quite a few different versions floating around. Some suggest that our Universe is but an offshoot of another Universe...a small local portion that underwent a drastic expansion (Inflation) so fast it was "cut off" from all other parts of the Universe. Others suggest that our Universe existed much as it does now (perhaps EXACTLY as it does now)...and that it periodically undergoes cycles of expansion/contraction/expansion.

Hue had another good point about entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy is (on average) increasing. Like a bomg going off, the Universe is progressing from a state of VERY low entropy to a state of much higher entropy. It should be pointed out, however, that such a state of low entropy is an extremely unlikely situation, and our best physics is still unable to give a solid reason for why the Universe could have existed in such a state of low entropy at all! In a sense...our Universe should never have existed, statistically speaking  :wink:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,377
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: Source]
    #2843485 - 06/30/04 02:24 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Yes, it wasn't Hawking who came up with the Big Bang theory. The basic idea was first proposed by the Belgian priest Georges Lema?tre, as he observed a redshift in distant galaxies. His preliminary observations were later confirmed by Edwin Hubble, leading to the actual theory we refer to as "The Big Bang".


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSource
Remainder of anUnbalancedEquation
Male

Registered: 07/28/03
Posts: 667
Loc: Outer Darkness
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: trendal]
    #2843619 - 06/30/04 03:06 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Thanks for that concise, well written account of the big bang theory. Spot on man!

So unless I'm not getting you right...the universe seems to have been under contraction before the 'repulsive' effect of gravity caused the 'big bang'. This would imply that the universe is closed and oscillating...crunch...bang...crunch...bang...

However, as I understand it, physicists are now saying that there appears to be an unknown force which is accelerating the rate of expansionin the universe...meaning there will not be a crunch, just endless expansion at an ever increasing (perhaps exponential) rate until entropy has its way. A depressing prospect indeed.

I vote for an oscillating universe!


--------------------
What you're searching for is what's searching.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHuehuecoyotl
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 10,329
Loc: On the Border
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: Source]
    #2843736 - 06/30/04 03:39 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

I stand corrected. He did not first propose it, but popularized the theory which he later came to see as irrelevant and a waste of researcher's time because it can't be proven and happened before the universe existed. It was first proposed in 1927 by Georges Lema?tre. Thanks for the attention to detail.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,377
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: Source]
    #2843751 - 06/30/04 03:43 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Yes, in recent years we have started to think that the Universe will go on expanding forever (a cold, cold death...) instead of slowing and then contracting.

A possibility other than the expansion/contraction idea is that our Universe is just an "offshoot-universe" from another, larger, Universe. It could be that what we know as "the visible universe" is simply an area of another Universe that underwent Inflation...which in effect would cut it off from the rest of the larger Universe.


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHuehuecoyotl
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 10,329
Loc: On the Border
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: Source]
    #2843767 - 06/30/04 03:46 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

"the universe seems to have been under contraction before the 'repulsive' effect of gravity caused the 'big bang'."

Actually there is no way to tell what happened before the bang, but
it is confirmed that the universe is expanding now. Many believe it will contract and bang again, but the second law seems to contradict this, but my understanding of this subject just encompasses the basics.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSource
Remainder of anUnbalancedEquation
Male

Registered: 07/28/03
Posts: 667
Loc: Outer Darkness
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: trendal]
    #2843790 - 06/30/04 03:54 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Perhaps the 'area of another universe that underwent inflation' was a contracting black hole of 'another' universe which gave rise to the inflationary big bang that created this universe...which of course contains it's own black holes giving rise to its own children universes.

I have heard a theory that universes pass thier fundamental laws (genes) to children universes (black holes) which pass theirs on to their children much like biological evolution. The conditions (fundamental laws) necessary for a universe to propagate (create black holes) happen to be the same contitions which create a universe suitable for the evolution of life.


--------------------
What you're searching for is what's searching.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHuehuecoyotl
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 10,329
Loc: On the Border
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: Source]
    #2843803 - 06/30/04 03:59 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

The idea of other universes is intriguing, but any thing outside our universe is unmeasurable unless it is connected to ours, but this begs the question if a universe is connected to ours doesn't that make it part of our universe?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblelukeboots
fresh futuristic
Male User Gallery
Registered: 02/04/04
Posts: 19,728
Loc: Grand Ole Operating Syste...
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang *DELETED* [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #2843818 - 06/30/04 04:03 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Post deleted by jonnywax

Reason for deletion: ~



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,377
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: lukeboots]
    #2843835 - 06/30/04 04:06 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

I just wanted to compare our universe to a growing and expanding cell.

Nature does repeat itself, on various scales, over and over again :wink:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblelukeboots
fresh futuristic
Male User Gallery
Registered: 02/04/04
Posts: 19,728
Loc: Grand Ole Operating Syste...
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: trendal]
    #2843872 - 06/30/04 04:14 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

True. But I meant the very nature of a cell; which is to keep something greater than itself alive and in the meantime eventually die out (which would also mean this universe had a beginning)..

*whistles and walks away*


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: lukeboots]
    #2843907 - 06/30/04 04:30 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

The Big Bang was caused when God went insane. I wrote this up in a story when I was age 9 called "One".


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,377
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: Swami]
    #2843910 - 06/30/04 04:31 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

You silly nutter :smirk:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: trendal]
    #2843949 - 06/30/04 04:44 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Smooth or chunky?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/24/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: lukeboots]
    #2844201 - 06/30/04 06:06 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

jonnywax said:
This is most likely very elementary stuff for the regular visitors of S&P, but since I'm not a regular visitor here I'll just try to explain a theory that makes quite a bit of sense to me.

Originally posted at the Dextroverse, I figured I'd see what you guys over here though too. Like I said, it's not really rocket science, but it's interesting. Maybe you've heard these exact thoughts before.


We all know the theory of the "Big Bang," right? Out of nothing spawns energy which slowly collects itself until it implodes and somehow ends up spawning an ameoba. Dumbed down, I know, but that's the jist of it (I think).

Anyway, we also know that this theory means nothing on it's own, correct? For where did the energy that spawned this universe come from in the first place? We're still struck agast by the thought that (assuming time in linear*) something was created out of nothing.

This really makes no more sense than the creationist view until we put a slight spin on it. I'm going to back-track a bit here.

Think, for a moment, on the nature of our universe. Individual working sections of our cell structure work together to form cells. In turn, cells make up organisms. Organisms make up societies and cultures. Cultures and societies make up planets. Planets, in turn, make up the universe. Would it be plausible to maybe imagine that our universe is nothing but a cell? It would certainly explain the nature of 'order from chaos' that we seem to see every day in our lives; and would also allow the Big Bang theory to work. The BB would work in this case, because cells can reproduce, creating something out of nothing.




Have a good day everyone, and please share your thoughts or comments on my half-baked theory. :wink:

*Concerning the topic of linear time: A post was made at the dextroverse containing the following response to my initial post:

"Perhaps something hasn't been created out of nothing. Perhaps time is circular rather than linear, and eventually everything will contract into one enourmous lump of 'stuff' that will produce the big bang and everything will start over."

I replied:
Could be - I'm just approaching this as trying to give the Big Bang a little bit of plausability (in my own mind).

Time may not be linear; but that's certainly the easiest and most sensical way for humans to view it; so it only makes sense to base theories around that view. I don't really want to get into an argument on the nature of time, since it's a very complex subject.

Also in regards to your post, I was actually trying to also give an answer to the mind-boggling 'why are we here?' question that seems to plague us all. If, indeed, we are nothing more than a cell or series of cells promoting that which is much greater than us (and may be unknowingly working to keep it alive - think "Cosmic Baby" if you will), then the question 'why are we here?' is given a lot less meaning; and in turn we may all be able to enjoy ourselves in our small part of this universe! (while still maintaining a sense of 'universal connectedness' and spirituality and all that jazz, seeing as we -would- be part of something greater than us, not merely alone in the grand scheme of things)

I don't know, this theory makes sense to me, and until someone can completely disprove it, I'm keeping it on my wishlist of answers to the unanswerable questions.

...So then, anyone want to add anything? I'd like to hear what everyone here has to say about this!




Cells do not create something out of nothing. ]

if time is circular whats outside the circle.

everything is infinite.


--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJacquesCousteau
Being.
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/10/03
Posts: 7,825
Loc: Everywhere, Everytime.
Last seen: 5 months, 26 days
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: BleaK]
    #2844682 - 06/30/04 08:35 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

:thumbup:

You can't erase the box and then make a bigger box. Instead, you simply have to eliminate the box all together.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblelukeboots
fresh futuristic
Male User Gallery
Registered: 02/04/04
Posts: 19,728
Loc: Grand Ole Operating Syste...
Re: A very simple theory on the Big Bang [Re: JacquesCousteau]
    #2844715 - 06/30/04 08:48 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Cells do not create something out of nothing.




True, they don't. But, for the purpose of this 'explanation' or what-have-you that doesn't particularly matter (to me). If indeed our universe acted a cell, having been replicated from something that previously existed (perhaps another cell, or put a different way, this "offshoot universe" that trendal referred to), then what would the end factor of what we were a greater part of particularly matter for the time being? I can't say what we "might be a part of" because obviously there's enough flaws in this idea as it is, I don't need to try to make more assumptions.

Example of what I'm trying to get across.. A cell that is replicated/split from another cell no longer has any connection with the original cell which it was a part of. So, I guess you're right - Cells do not create something out of nothing. They create something out of something. But the original 'something' that we may have come from can easily be imagined by us as 'nothing', as it was before anything pertaining to us mattered. (Sort of)

Quote:

you simply have to eliminate the box all together.




that's not quite as simply done as it is said..for now, making the box bigger and more interesting is all I want to do. :wink:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Scales

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* No simple theory can cope with the enormous complexity revealed by modern genetics. TheHateCamel 902 9 01/17/05 12:51 AM
by Phluck
* Florida Board of Education Debates Evolution DiploidM 2,507 5 02/18/08 12:04 PM
by Icelander
* Theories DNKYD 774 10 03/23/05 04:59 PM
by Diploid
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 6,117 61 12/08/03 05:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Falsifying evolution?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Mr. Mushrooms 4,150 102 05/06/09 02:45 PM
by Mr. Mushrooms
* New Movie "Exiled": Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
( 1 2 all )
OrgoneConclusion 2,276 23 10/11/07 01:41 PM
by OrgoneConclusion
* the big bang, origin of existence, it's implications & god kaiowas 600 2 05/15/04 02:49 PM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Evolution of consciousness / Spiral Dynamics Buddha1 954 2 09/21/05 02:13 PM
by qhr0me

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, DividedQuantum
1,919 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.102 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.