FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


WILL universe ever end?





gaurav.baral1
WILL universe ever end?
newolder
gaurav.baral1 wrote:
WILL universe ever end?


The measure of the universe is shown to be infinite, but well behaved, in this* model. ed. Cool

* http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0609/0609095.pdf
llobo1
Yes, the universe will eventually end. However, this is going to take billions and billions of years.

Scientifically
Eventually the effect of the expanding galaxies etc. created by the big bang will cease and all of the galaxies will be pulled back by gravity into the point from which the universe began. This in turn could create a new Big Bang and the cycle will contiune indefinately.

Religously
Wait for apocalypse. During this period all of life will end. Therefore for us at least the universe will end.
llobo1
Unless you mean does the universe end (are there boundries to it) in which case I don't know. It is possible that the universe could have a 4th dimension so flying off one edge brings you back onto the other side. But we don't really know yet.
Indi
llobo1 wrote:
Yes, the universe will eventually end. However, this is going to take billions and billions of years.

Scientifically
Eventually the effect of the expanding galaxies etc. created by the big bang will cease and all of the galaxies will be pulled back by gravity into the point from which the universe began. This in turn could create a new Big Bang and the cycle will contiune indefinately.

Actually, i believe that current evidence indicates that the universe will not collapse back in on itself (no "Big Crunch"). Instead it will go on expanding forever ("Heat Death", or something similar).
The Conspirator
The universe is not only expanding, the expansion is accelerating. So its going to continue to expand forever until all stars die out.
ZealousZ
well if expansion is acceleration, wouldn't it reach the point that it goes so fast that it begins to go back in time and retract
darknight985
llobo1 wrote:
Unless you mean does the universe end (are there boundries to it) in which case I don't know. It is possible that the universe could have a 4th dimension so flying off one edge brings you back onto the other side. But we don't really know yet.


Yes i agree with llobo1, and i have read some articles that the universe could infact just be a giant space warp. For instance if you took off from earth and went "north", you would eventually go so far "north" that you would end up back at earth from the "south". I believe that this is what the universe does but I am not completely sure. I will be waitng for the scientists of our "new" age to find the answer to that question.
The Conspirator
ZealousZ wrote:
well if expansion is acceleration, wouldn't it reach the point that it goes so fast that it begins to go back in time and retract

That would require the universe to expand faster than the speed of light but that would require and infinite amount of energy to exasperate to faster than the speed of light. So no, the universe's expansion could exhilarate to 99.999% the speed of light.
ocalhoun
ZealousZ wrote:
well if expansion is acceleration,

expansion is not acceleration.

Also, even if the universe compacted back into one big chunk of mass and energy, as it supposedly was before the big bang, would that really be the end of the universe? It would still be there, just different.
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
ZealousZ wrote:
well if expansion is acceleration,

expansion is not acceleration.

i think he meant "if the expansion is accelerating", which it apparently is.

ocalhoun wrote:
Also, even if the universe compacted back into one big chunk of mass and energy, as it supposedly was before the big bang, would that really be the end of the universe? It would still be there, just different.

That's really splitting hairs if nothing - no time, space, matter or energy - exists anymore. Whether the universe crunches or fizzles, there will nothing coherent left. To argue that the universe would still exist after either eventuality is equivalent to suggesting that a building that had a nuclear bomb explode on it and was vapourized still exists because the (sub)atomic matter that made it up was not destroyed.
llobo1
So the universe is continuing to expand. But what is it expanding into?? If it is expanding there must be something for it to expand into? But the universe is supposed to include everything there is. So maybe it's not that the universe is expanding but that the galaxies are just flying into space which before was empty.
Nerdlings
Of course everything has to end at some point. The universe willl probably end when the Sun blows up or dies. That will take some billion years but it will eventually happen.
Cibes
Nerdlings wrote:
Of course everything has to end at some point. The universe willl probably end when the Sun blows up or dies. That will take some billion years but it will eventually happen.

The universe is a lot more than just our sun!
Where does the energy come from to accelerate the expansion of the universe?
Indi wrote:
if nothing - no time, space, matter or energy - exists anymore

How could that happen? Isn't it impossible to "lose" energy - you can only convert it to a different kind?
Badabinski
This is one of the most widely debated topics in science. On one extreme, you have creationists, who believe in the apocalypse, rapture, or other things of the sort. The other end (where I am located) believes mainly in one of two theories. There is the oscillating theory and the heat death theory (that's not the real name, but meh).
In the oscillating theory, the universe explodes (if you can say that). It expands until it reaches a critical point. At this critical point, the expansion in stopped by mass in the universe. It then begins to contract, until it reaches a nearly dimensionless clump of matter. It then "Bangs" outward and causes the cycle to start again.
The heat death theory is the same in the beginning, except the universe doesn't stop expanding. It continues expanding. Eventually, all matter in the universe is lead (too heavy to fuse). The temperature quickly drops to absolute zero. Black holes "dissolve", and there is no variation of energy in the universe. There may be energy, but it cannot be used for work.
That's a basic breakdown of all current theories. There is also the archaic steady-state theory, which matter is created at the center of the universe proportionate to the rate of expansion. This was disproved (strange things were found large distances away, stars redshifting & blueshifting away and towards us). As for what the universe is expanding into, no one really knows. One theory is that our universe is expanding into a multiverse. I can't explain it, so you might want to check wikipedia on that one. If you want information on the apocalypse or the rapture, go to church.
ocalhoun
Indi wrote:

i think he meant "if the expansion is accelerating", which it apparently is.

Oh, Well, that just shows the importance of proper grammar.

Indi wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:
Also, even if the universe compacted back into one big chunk of mass and energy, as it supposedly was before the big bang, would that really be the end of the universe? It would still be there, just different.

That's really splitting hairs if nothing - no time, space, matter or energy - exists anymore. Whether the universe crunches or fizzles, there will nothing coherent left. To argue that the universe would still exist after either eventuality is equivalent to suggesting that a building that had a nuclear bomb explode on it and was vapourized still exists because the (sub)atomic matter that made it up was not destroyed.

So, an incoherent universe doesn't count as a universe?
I suppose this depends on how you define the word 'universe'.
Google: Define: Universe wrote:


    *everything that exists anywhere; "they study the evolution of the universe"; "the biggest tree in existence"
    *The totality of space and time, along with all the matter and energy in it.

(And others less pertinent)

If you took the first definition there, it might be construed to support your position, in that everything that exists everywhere would be destroyed.
However, if you took the second definition, it would be difficult to explain how you could destroy both matter and energy without turning one into the other, much less how you could do that to all the matter and energy in the entire universe.
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
Indi wrote:

i think he meant "if the expansion is accelerating", which it apparently is.

Oh, Well, that just shows the importance of proper grammar.

True.

ocalhoun wrote:
Indi wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:
Also, even if the universe compacted back into one big chunk of mass and energy, as it supposedly was before the big bang, would that really be the end of the universe? It would still be there, just different.

That's really splitting hairs if nothing - no time, space, matter or energy - exists anymore. Whether the universe crunches or fizzles, there will nothing coherent left. To argue that the universe would still exist after either eventuality is equivalent to suggesting that a building that had a nuclear bomb explode on it and was vapourized still exists because the (sub)atomic matter that made it up was not destroyed.

So, an incoherent universe doesn't count as a universe?
I suppose this depends on how you define the word 'universe'.
Google: Define: Universe wrote:


    *everything that exists anywhere; "they study the evolution of the universe"; "the biggest tree in existence"
    *The totality of space and time, along with all the matter and energy in it.

(And others less pertinent)

If you took the first definition there, it might be construed to support your position, in that everything that exists everywhere would be destroyed.
However, if you took the second definition, it would be difficult to explain how you could destroy both matter and energy without turning one into the other, much less how you could do that to all the matter and energy in the entire universe.

Not a problem, really.

As a matter of fact, if the universe dies a heat death (only one of the possible ends, but the one most likely with our current scientific knowledge), there will be no matter left. It will all have been converted to energy. However! Don't assume that all energy is equal. It is true that energy can only be converted from one form to another... but that doesn't mean that energy can always be converted from one form to another. There are forms of energy that, once converted to, cannot be converted back from. The concept is referred to as "usable energy", and is related to entropy. When the universe dies, the energy will still be "there", but it will no longer be in a form that can be used. It will be "dead" energy, energy in an incoherent form, at maximum entropy. There will be no way that anything can happen, because the energy to "fuel" events will be gone. There will be - in the truest sense of the word - nothing. No form, no thought, no action, no motion, no matter, no time, no nothing. Yes, the energy will still "be there", but absolutely useless. If you want to call that a universe, go nuts, but then i would ask whether or not you would call a glowing radioactive puddle that used to be a person but has just been melted by a death ray a human being. i mean, after all, all the stuff that made up the person is still right there in that puddle. Seems a little silly to me, though, because it certainly doesn't have any of the characteristics or capabilities that a person does. Likewise for the dead energy at the end of the universe - it won't have any of the capabilities or characteristics of what i would consider a universe, it just happens to be made of the same stuff. The universe would be, forever, gone. Just the stuff it was made of would remain.

The same is true if the universe collapses in a "Big Crunch". Yeah, sure, all the energy is still there, but not in any useful form. It's just a big (or little) ball of dimensionless, featureless potential. When it explodes (if it explodes again), it will form a universe... but not the universe that existed before. That universe is, forever, gone. Just the stuff it was made of remains.

So if you define universe as just the stuff the universe is made up of, then yes, the universe may exist "forever" (although, since time will die, "forever" doesn't mean much). But i think the universe is more than the sum of the stuff that makes it up - i think the patterns and forms in the universe are as much a part of what defines a universe as the building materials. i wouldn't say a pane of glass and a pile of sand are the same thing just because they are made up of the same components, would you? Form and structure are important, and it is that which will be lost forever when the universe dies, even if the raw materials remain (albeit in a form that is unusable and can never again create any form or structure).
jongoldsz
It probably will. everything that starts has an end, and if the big bang happened once, it could have happened hundreds of other times.
cong06
I think a better question is: WILL time ever end? because to us that's the main thing.

If time keeps going, then the universe, as we know it, is continuing. As Indi said, When (if) the Universe collapses in the big crunch, all the energy is still there, but the universe isn't really.
Indi wrote:

That's really splitting hairs if nothing - no time, space, matter or energy - exists anymore. Whether the universe crunches or fizzles, there will nothing coherent left. To argue that the universe would still exist after either eventuality is equivalent to suggesting that a building that had a nuclear bomb explode on it and was vapourized still exists because the (sub)atomic matter that made it up was not destroyed.

Yeah, and I agree with that. I'd say the Universe basically "started" when the Big Bang occurred. so it would "end" when the Big Crunch happens.
Cibes wrote:
Where does the energy come from to accelerate the expansion of the universe?

I guess that's one of life's unanswered questions. like how a photon can be a particle and a wave at the same time.
Man, those physists need to hurry up and answer them asap.
Cibes wrote:
How could that happen? Isn't it impossible to "lose" energy - you can only convert it to a different kind?

All the energy wouldn't disappear, I think, It would all be in the Black hole.
Badabinski wrote:
On one extreme, you have creationists, who believe in the apocalypse, rapture, or other things of the sort. The other end (where I am located) believes mainly in one of two theories. There is the oscillating theory and the heat death theory (that's not the real name, but meh).

Well, I wouldn't call it an extreme...I for one, am on the creationist side, except that I know that God created the world through science. How the end will come out I don't know.

One interesting Idea that hasn't been mentioned yet, and I find fascinating, is this:
What if the Universe is circular? When the Universe keeps expanding, it eventually expands back into itself, and we have the big crunch, except without the universe actually changing direction.
It's also possible that It's just something I read somewhere and actually doesn't work. Our minds can't really comprehend it though....weird. huh?
Soltair
On one part, the universe is expanding. Also, energy tends to dispatch itself in order to be in the same amount everywhere.

Consider the nuclear reactions going on a bit everywhere in the universe. Big atoms split into smaller atoms, which will then split themselves. Then, the smallest atoms (hydrogen) fuses to create slighty bigger atoms. What if it all ended with a few atoms types?

But that was an old and weird theory, utmostly utopic. I'd tend to believe more in the Heat Death, as some pointed out here.
ocalhoun
Indi wrote:
i wouldn't say a pane of glass and a pile of sand are the same thing just because they are made up of the same components, would you? Form and structure are important, and it is that which will be lost forever when the universe dies, even if the raw materials remain (albeit in a form that is unusable and can never again create any form or structure).


No, but I would say that a particular atom in that sand would still be the same thing even after the sand it was a part of has been made into glass. That single atom is as much a part of the universe as the entire pane of glass is.
Important, yes, but not all. Take your example of cold death; everything would still be there, but with no activity whatsoever, due to the absence of usable energy, therefore making it 'absolutely useless' because it has 'run out of fuel' (to use your own words). Now consider your car has run out of fuel (and for some reason you can't possible acquire more fuel). That does mean the car is useless (at least as for use as a mode of transportation), but it doesn't mean that the car has been destroyed.
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
Indi wrote:
i wouldn't say a pane of glass and a pile of sand are the same thing just because they are made up of the same components, would you? Form and structure are important, and it is that which will be lost forever when the universe dies, even if the raw materials remain (albeit in a form that is unusable and can never again create any form or structure).


No, but I would say that a particular atom in that sand would still be the same thing even after the sand it was a part of has been made into glass. That single atom is as much a part of the universe as the entire pane of glass is.

But when the universe ends that atom would be gone. The constituent components - electrons, protons and neutrons - would be gone. The subatomic quarks - gone. Everything gone. There would be nothing left to identify as a component of the glass. There would be nothing left to do any identifying either. You can never recover any part of what was once that pane of glass. It's all gone.

There's nothing left. Even the energy itself that it has collapsed into is functionally non-existent, because it can never be measured, used or observed.

ocalhoun wrote:
Important, yes, but not all. Take your example of cold death; everything would still be there, but with no activity whatsoever, due to the absence of usable energy, therefore making it 'absolutely useless' because it has 'run out of fuel' (to use your own words). Now consider your car has run out of fuel (and for some reason you can't possible acquire more fuel). That does mean the car is useless (at least as for use as a mode of transportation), but it doesn't mean that the car has been destroyed.

In this case, a more appropriate analogy would be that your car ran out of gas then melted to a puddle of slag. It's not just that the universe has no more usable energy - time and matter have ceased to exist. Even if you were to provide an infusion of usable energy from somewhere (ie, refilling the car with gas), there's nothing left to run. It's gone, dead, finito. Pour gas on it all you want, it ain't goin' nowhere.

So yes, i would say that the car is destroyed.
ocalhoun
Indi wrote:
It's not just that the universe has no more usable energy - time and matter have ceased to exist. Even if you were to provide an infusion of usable energy from somewhere (ie, refilling the car with gas), there's nothing left to run. It's gone, dead, finito. Pour gas on it all you want, it ain't goin' nowhere.

So yes, i would say that the car is destroyed.


So, ignoring the fact that it wouldn't technically be possible, adding energy to the universe would not revitalize it after the cause of it's end was lack of usable energy? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. What then would happen to the added energy? Also, why do you think time would stop? Just because it could not be measured?

As a side note, 'functionally non-existent' would not qualify as non-existent.

If the universe only exists if it stays in the same form it is in now, how can it exist at all except for a brief moment? All the parts of it, from the largest to the most tiny are constantly rearranging themselves, so what would be the difference if all of those parts rearranged themselves into one mass, then exploded again? It would still be just yet another rearrangement.
greatfire
eventually the universe will be quadrillion time larger then it is now and be completely empty. then it will fall in on itself. That is my theory.
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
So, ignoring the fact that it wouldn't technically be possible, adding energy to the universe would not revitalize it after the cause of it's end was lack of usable energy? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. What then would happen to the added energy? Also, why do you think time would stop? Just because it could not be measured?

It's not that it wouldn't be possible to add usable energy to the universe after it was dead - you'd just have to assume that that usable energy came from somewhere "outside" the universe. Of course, then the question becomes can there be anything "outside" the universe? While that's an important question in reality, it doesn't matter to a thought experiment. You want to hypothesize adding energy to a dead universe from somewhere else, go for it.

The universe is not a rechargable battery. Once it's energy is "used up" - that is, converted to it's lowest form - it can never be recovered. Ever. By anything. It's gone, used up, dead. If God could recover that energy, then he can also make a square circle. That's because that energy is dead. Gone. Useless. There is no way - no way - to get it back.

If you put more energy into the universe, you will not "turn it back on". You will have - to continue your analogy of the car - poured gasoline on the slagheap that used to be a car. It's not going to run again. Oh, sure, you can ignite the gas you just added and watch it burn, but it won't save the car. You could add even more energy and use some of the remains of the car to make a new car, then gas that up... but the original car is still gone. A universe would exist, but the universe would still be gone.

So if you added energy, you could create a new universe... but you could never recover the "material" of the old universe. It really is gone.

ocalhoun wrote:
As a side note, 'functionally non-existent' would not qualify as non-existent.

From a philosophical standpoint, perhaps. Consider, is your great-great grandfather gone? Technically, no. The material and energy that made him up must still exist in the universe. If i asked you, right now, about the current moment (not the past), "does your great-great-grandfather exist?" what will you answer?

The answer i would give is no. Some components and aspects that were once him continue to exist, but he himself is gone. He does not exist anymore.

Now, arguably, you could - in far out theory - collect all of the material and "energy" that made him up and recreate him. It wouldn't just be a copy of your grandfather, it would be him, exactly, made up of the same matter and energy that he was. So you could make him exist again. But during that period where he was gone, did he exist?

But with the universe, you cannot ever recover the dead energy that once made up the universe. So you can never even recover the universe. You can make a copy, but never the same universe over again. It's really, totally gone - even with far out theorizing, there is no way to recover it.

ocalhoun wrote:
If the universe only exists if it stays in the same form it is in now, how can it exist at all except for a brief moment? All the parts of it, from the largest to the most tiny are constantly rearranging themselves, so what would be the difference if all of those parts rearranged themselves into one mass, then exploded again? It would still be just yet another rearrangement.

Now you're just making a straw man argument. Nothing i have said or implied suggests that the universe has to stay in the same form. You made that up yourself in order to attack it. But it's obviously silly.

But you've also showed the flaw in your objection with your own words: "All the parts of it, from the largest to the most tiny are constantly rearranging themselves, so what would be the difference if all of those parts rearranged themselves into one mass, then exploded again?"

There are no more parts of it. They are all gone and cannot be recovered by any means. There is no more rearrangement, no more motion. It is cold and dead. Everything has stopped. There is nothing left to observe, and nothing left to observe it. The dead energy cannot be measured, and it cannot be recovered.

If you're silly argument were true, then a person would only exist for a brief moment, because people change all the time. Obviously that's not true. But when that person dies, even though they leave behind rotting biological matter (less 21 grams or whatever)... they're gone. That person no longer exists, even though their corpse may be rotting in your arms.
newolder
newolder wrote:
gaurav.baral1 wrote:
WILL universe ever end?


The measure of the universe is shown to be infinite, but well behaved, in this* model. ed. Cool

* http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0609/0609095.pdf


Mind you, Sir Roger Penrose provides evidence (& predictions) of a different, 10-D reality at this web-cast from 6th February this year*.

Charged, massless entities, anyone? And, hasn't electron decay been discussed earlier too? Iirc, 10^23 years (edit) was mentioned as a half-life...

I'll have a rootle...

Yep, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0312325 but, as ever, the Prof. is correct in that he notes such work requires non-conservation of charge...

Also, what violation (CP or T) is made here, i wonder? http://www.answers.com/topic/muon-electron-decay-png

ed. Wink


"Requires RealPlayer", t'internet says.

* http://real.bnl.gov/ramgen/bnl/penrose.rm
silkmesh
Big Bang

I have read many scientific theories about how the universe was created, all being very long winded theories, as if proof to the author’s high academic standings. Prof. Friedmann, William Lane Craig, John Leslie, Hawking, Penrose, Guth, Linde's, Albrecht, Steinhardt's, Tryon's and Gott have all added life to the Big Bang Cosmology question. ‘Einstein equation' that lies at the heart of the General Theory of Relativity gave power to the original Friedmann’s theory and Prof. Hawkins was dabbling with quantum maths to prove his point.

I am not an expert within this field however I do have my own ideas based on what I believe to be logical facts.

The first being you cannot manufacture something if you do not have the basic materials;

1. The universe exists

2. Something must have caused the creation

Perhaps there is no such thing as total emptiness and emptiness cannot exist. That the very emptiness of space created the big bang as emptiness has to contain something. Maybe that the mechanisms Quantum physics are not fully understood perhaps instead of two quarks there are four; two matter quarks and two anti-matters that if all four met the set quarks then cease to exist. Would it of been possible that the big bang was caused the eruption of separating pairs of quarks spiralling outwards forming two new universes one of matter and the other of antimatter.

Perhaps both universes eventually meet and join together to create a void prior to a new rebirth. Could it be that antimatter is very dense, could it be black holes are made up of antimatter a product of the big bang; perhaps there is only one universe? Lets leave that problem to the theorist most properly someone as bright as the late Prof. Hawkins will provide an answer.


Research Notes.

Big Bang Theory, currently accepted explanation of the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.

The theory is based on the mathematical equations, known as the field equations, of the general theory of relativity set forth in 1915 by Albert Einstein. In 1922 Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann provided a set of solutions to the field equations. These solutions have served as the framework for much of the current theoretical work on the big bang theory. American astronomer Edwin Hubble provided some of the greatest supporting evidence for the theory with his 1929 discovery that the light of distant galaxies was universally shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (see Redshift). Once “tired light” theories—that light slowly loses energy naturally, becoming more red over time—were dismissed, this shift proved that the galaxies were moving away from each other. Hubble found that galaxies farther away were moving away proportionally faster, showing that the universe is expanding uniformly. However, the universe’s initial state was still unknown
In the 1940s Russian-American physicist George Gamow worked out a theory that fit with Friedmann’s solutions in which the universe expanded from a hot, dense state. In 1950 British astronomer Fred Hoyle, in support of his own opposing steady-state theory, referred to Gamow’s theory as a mere “big bang,” but the name stuck. Indeed, a contest in the 1990s by Sky & Telescope magazine to find a better (perhaps more dignified) name did not produce one.
The overall framework of the big bang theory came out of solutions to Einstein’s general relativity field equations and remains unchanged, but various details of the theory are still being modified today. Einstein himself initially believed that the universe was static. When his equations seemed to imply that the universe was expanding or contracting, Einstein added a constant term to cancel out the expansion or contraction of the universe. When the expansion of the universe was later discovered, Einstein stated that introducing this “cosmological constant” had been a mistake.
After Einstein’s work of 1917, several scientists, including the abbé Georges Lemaître in Belgium, Willem de Sitter in Holland, and Alexander Friedmann in Russia, succeeded in finding solutions to Einstein’s field equations. The universes described by the different solutions varied. De Sitter’s model had no matter in it. This model is actually not a bad approximation since the average density of the universe is extremely low. Lemaître’s universe expanded from a “primeval atom.” Friedmann’s universe also expanded from a very dense clump of matter, but did not involve the cosmological constant. These models explained how the universe behaved shortly after its creation, but there was still no satisfactory explanation for the beginning of the universe.
In the 1940s George Gamow was joined by his students Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in working out details of Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s theory. They expanded on Gamow’s idea that the universe expanded from a primordial state of matter called ylem consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons in a sea of radiation. They theorized the universe was very hot at the time of the big bang (the point at which the universe explosively expanded from its primordial state), since elements heavier than hydrogen can be formed only at a high temperature. Alpher and Hermann predicted that radiation from the big bang should still exist. Cosmic background radiation roughly corresponding to the temperature predicted by Gamow’s team was detected in the 1960s, further supporting the big bang theory, though the work of Alpher, Herman, and Gamow had been forgotten.
The big bang theory seeks to explain what happened at or soon after the beginning of the universe. Scientists can now model the universe back to 10-43 seconds after the big bang. For the time before that moment, the classical theory of gravity is no longer adequate. Scientists are searching for a theory that merges gravity (as explained by Einstein's general theory of relativity) and quantum mechanics but have not found one yet. Many scientists have hope that string theory, also known as M-theory, will tie together gravity and quantum mechanics and help scientists explore further back in time (see Physics: Unified Field Theory).
Because scientists cannot look back in time beyond that early epoch, the actual big bang is hidden from them. There is no way at present to detect the origin of the universe. Further, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang. It may be that time itself began at the big bang, so that it makes no sense to discuss what happened “before” the big bang.
According to the big bang theory, the universe expanded rapidly in its first microseconds. A single force existed at the beginning of the universe, and as the universe expanded and cooled, this force separated into those we know today: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. A theory called the electroweak theory now provides a unified explanation of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force theory (see Unified Field Theory). Physicists are now searching for a grand unification theory to also incorporate the strong nuclear force. String theory seeks to incorporate the force of gravity with the other three forces, providing a theory of everything (TOE).
One widely accepted version of big bang theory includes the idea of inflation. In this model, the universe expanded much more rapidly at first, to about 1050 times its original size in the first 10-32 second, then slowed its expansion. The theory was advanced in the 1980s by American cosmologist Alan Guth and elaborated upon by American astronomer Paul Steinhardt, Russian American scientist Andrei Linde, and British astronomer Andreas Albrecht. The inflationary universe theory (see Inflationary Theory) solves a number of problems of cosmology. For example, it shows that the universe now appears close to the type of flat space described by the laws of Euclid’s geometry: We see only a tiny region of the original universe, similar to the way we do not notice the curvature of the earth because we see only a small part of it. The inflationary universe also shows why the universe appears so homogeneous. If the universe we observe was inflated from some small, original region, it is not surprising that it appears uniform.
Once the expansion of the initial inflationary era ended, the universe continued to expand more slowly. The inflationary model predicts that the universe is on the boundary between being open and closed. If the universe is open, it will keep expanding forever. If the universe is closed, the expansion of the universe will eventually stop and the universe will begin contracting until it collapses. Whether the universe is open or closed depends on the density, or concentration of mass, in the universe. If the universe is dense enough, it is closed.
The universe cooled as it expanded. After about one second, protons formed. In the following few minutes—often referred to as the “first three minutes”—combinations of protons and neutrons formed the isotope of hydrogen known as deuterium as well as some of the other light elements, principally helium, as well as some lithium, beryllium, and boron. The study of the distribution of deuterium, helium, and the other light elements is now a major field of research. The uniformity of the helium abundance around the universe supports the big bang theory and the abundance of deuterium can be used to estimate the density of matter in the universe.

From about 380,000 to about 1 million years after the big bang, the universe cooled to about 3000°C (about 5000°F) and protons and electrons combined to make hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen atoms can only absorb and emit specific colors, or wavelengths, of light. The formation of atoms allowed many other wavelengths of light, wavelengths that had been interfering with the free electrons, to travel much farther than before. This change set free radiation that we can detect today. After billions of years of cooling, this cosmic background radiation is at about 3 K (-270°C/-454°F).The cosmic background radiation was first detected and identified in 1965 by American astrophysicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.
The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) spacecraft, a project of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), mapped the cosmic background radiation between 1989 and 1993. It verified that the distribution of intensity of the background radiation precisely matched that of matter that emits radiation because of its temperature, as predicted for the big bang theory. It also showed that cosmic background radiation is not uniform, that it varies slightly. These variations are thought to be the seeds from which galaxies and other structures in the universe grew.
Evidence indicates that the matter that scientists detect in the universe is only a small fraction of all the matter that exists. For example, observations of the speeds at which individual galaxies move within clusters of galaxies show that a great deal of unseen matter must exist to exert sufficient gravitational force to keep the clusters from flying apart. Cosmologists now think that much of the universe is dark matter—matter that has gravity but does not give off radiation that we can see or otherwise detect. One kind of dark matter theorized by scientists is cold dark matter, with slowly moving (cold) massive particles. No such particles have yet been detected, though astronomers have made up fanciful names for them, such as Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs). Other cold dark matter could be nonradiating stars or planets, which are known as MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects).
An alternative theory that explains the dark-matter model involves hot dark matter, where hot implies that the particles are moving very fast. Neutrinos, fundamental particles that travel at nearly the speed of light, are the prime example of hot dark matter. However, scientists think that the mass of a neutrino is so low that neutrinos can only account for a small portion of dark matter. If the inflationary version of big bang theory is correct, then the amount of dark matter and of whatever else might exist is just enough to bring the universe to the boundary between open and closed.
Scientists develop theoretical models to show how the universe’s structures, such as clusters of galaxies, have formed. Their models invoke hot dark matter, cold dark matter, or a mixture of the two. This unseen matter would have provided the gravitational force needed to bring large structures such as clusters of galaxies together. The theories that include dark matter match the observations, although there is no consensus on the type or types of dark matter that must be included. Supercomputers are important for making such models.
Astronomers continue to make new observations that are also interpreted within the framework of the big bang theory. No major problems with the big bang theory have been found, but scientists constantly adjust the theory to match the observed universe. In particular, a “standard model” of the big bang has been established by results from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), launched in 2001 (see Cosmology). The probe studied the anisotropies, or ripples, in the temperature of cosmic background radiation at a higher resolution than COBE was capable of. These ripples indicate that regions of the young universe were very slightly hotter or cooler, by a factor of about 1/1000, than adjacent regions. WMAP’s observations suggest that the rate of expansion of the universe, called Hubble’s constant, is about 71 km/s/Mpc (kilometers per second per million parsecs, where a parsec is about 3.26 light-years). In other words, the distance between any two objects in space that are separated by a million parsecs increases by about 71 km every second in addition to any other motion they may have relative to one another. In combination with previously existing observations, this rate of expansion tells cosmologists that the universe is “flat,” though flatness here does not refer to the actual shape of the universe but rather that the geometric laws that apply to the universe match those of a flat plane.

To be flat, the universe must contain a certain amount of matter and energy, known as the critical density. The distribution of sizes of ripples detected by WMAP show that ordinary matter—like that making up objects and living things on Earth—accounts for only 4.4 percent of the critical density. Dark matter makes up an additional 23 percent. Astoundingly, the remaining 73 percent of the universe is composed of something else—a substance so mysterious that nobody knows much about it. Called “dark energy,” this substance provides the antigravity-like negative pressure that causes the universe's expansion to accelerate rather than slow down. This “accelerating universe” was detected independently by two competing groups of astronomers in the last years of the 20th century. The ideas of an accelerating universe and the existence of dark energy have caused astronomers to substantially modify previous ideas of the big bang universe.
WMAP's results also show that cosmic background radiation was set free about 380,000 years after the big bang, later than was previously thought, and that the first stars formed only 200,000 years after the big bang, earlier than anticipated. Further refinements to the big bang theory are expected from WMAP, which continues to collect data. An even more precise mission to study the beginnings of the universe, the European Space Agency’s Planck spacecraft, is scheduled to be launched in 2007.



Bikerman
silkmesh wrote:
Big Bang

I have read many scientific theories about how the universe was created, all being very long winded theories, as if proof to the author’s high academic standings. Prof. Friedmann, William Lane Craig, John Leslie, Hawking, Penrose, Guth, Linde's, Albrecht, Steinhardt's, Tryon's and Gott have all added life to the Big Bang Cosmology question. ‘Einstein equation' that lies at the heart of the General Theory of Relativity gave power to the original Friedmann’s theory and Prof. Hawkins was dabbling with quantum maths to prove his point.

I am not an expert within this field however I do have my own ideas based on what I believe to be logical facts.

The first being you cannot manufacture something if you do not have the basic materials;

1. The universe exists

2. Something must have caused the creation

Perhaps there is no such thing as total emptiness and emptiness cannot exist. That the very emptiness of space created the big bang as emptiness has to contain something. Maybe that the mechanisms Quantum physics are not fully understood perhaps instead of two quarks there are four; two matter quarks and two anti-matters that if all four met the set quarks then cease to exist. Would it of been possible that the big bang was caused the eruption of separating pairs of quarks spiralling outwards forming two new universes one of matter and the other of antimatter.

a) Space is not empty and to make sense we should be talking about spacetime rather than space.
b) Emptiness is not a sensible concept to apply to pre-BB since emptiness implies space which contains nothing. Pre-BB there was NO space to be empty.
c) The composition of antimatter is well described by the standard model. Antimatter is that built from
  • Antiquarks (charges of -2/3 or +1/3).
  • Positively charged leptons.
  • Right-handed neutrinos.
wheras normal (Baryonic) matter is that built of
  • All quarks, (charges +2/3 and -1/3).
  • All negatively charged leptons.
  • Left handed neutrinos.
Quote:

Perhaps both universes eventually meet and join together to create a void prior to a new rebirth. Could it be that antimatter is very dense, could it be black holes are made up of antimatter a product of the big bang; perhaps there is only one universe? Lets leave that problem to the theorist most properly someone as bright as the late Prof. Hawkins will provide an answer.

It is theorised that matter black holes and antimatter black holes both exist and are separated by the Einstein-Rosen Bridge. More details here
newolder
Bikerman wrote:
silkmesh wrote:
Big Bang

I have read many scientific theories about how the universe was created, all being very long winded theories, as if proof to the author’s high academic standings. Prof. Friedmann, William Lane Craig, John Leslie, Hawking, Penrose, Guth, Linde's, Albrecht, Steinhardt's, Tryon's and Gott have all added life to the Big Bang Cosmology question. ‘Einstein equation' that lies at the heart of the General Theory of Relativity gave power to the original Friedmann’s theory and Prof. Hawkins was dabbling with quantum maths to prove his point.

I am not an expert within this field however I do have my own ideas based on what I believe to be logical facts.

The first being you cannot manufacture something if you do not have the basic materials;

1. The universe exists

2. Something must have caused the creation

Perhaps there is no such thing as total emptiness and emptiness cannot exist. That the very emptiness of space created the big bang as emptiness has to contain something. Maybe that the mechanisms Quantum physics are not fully understood perhaps instead of two quarks there are four; two matter quarks and two anti-matters that if all four met the set quarks then cease to exist. Would it of been possible that the big bang was caused the eruption of separating pairs of quarks spiralling outwards forming two new universes one of matter and the other of antimatter.

a) Space is not empty and to make sense we should be talking about spacetime rather than space.
b) Emptiness is not a sensible concept to apply to pre-BB since emptiness implies space which contains nothing. Pre-BB there was NO space to be empty.
c) The composition of antimatter is well described by the standard model. Antimatter is that built from
  • Antiquarks (charges of -2/3 or +1/3).
  • Positively charged leptons.
  • Right-handed neutrinos.
wheras normal (Baryonic) matter is that built of
  • All quarks, (charges +2/3 and -1/3).
  • All negatively charged leptons.
  • Left handed neutrinos.
Quote:

Perhaps both universes eventually meet and join together to create a void prior to a new rebirth. Could it be that antimatter is very dense, could it be black holes are made up of antimatter a product of the big bang; perhaps there is only one universe? Lets leave that problem to the theorist most properly someone as bright as the late Prof. Hawkins will provide an answer.

It is theorised that matter black holes and antimatter black holes both exist and are separated by the Einstein-Rosen Bridge. More details here




With you all the way to here, Chris:

Bikerman>It is theorised that matter black holes and antimatter black holes both exist and are separated by the Einstein-Rosen Bridge. More details here


Yep, the early days after the advents of Planck’s quantum theory and Einstein’s General Relativity theory of matter and radiation inspired much fantasy too: some remain as interesting sci-fi.

Feynman et al’s quantum electrodynamics hinted at the final test for an alien to be made of anti-matter: “Which hand (left, right, both, neither or no hands?) does it proffer in greeting?” and signatures from reality (COBE, WMAP &c) suggest no hint of anti-matter black holes in the neighbourhood. Yet.

Although I feel pretty sure Penrose has a true mind-image of the meaning of, “The cosmological constant, λ > 0.” I still find it much easier to visualise any accelerations in expansion from the viewpoint of co-moving observers in the dimension above, e.g. Planetary weather maps are best viewed from orbit/freefall.

As a general thought, can anyone hereabouts supply links to the relevant equations to look for differences in the gravitational radiation spectrum from time ~0 predicted by Penrose (scale invariant) and Steinhardt & Turok (scale invariant), please? Bridging the shoulders of these giants feels pretty precarious right now but I am reassured that both pictures SU(10) and SU(11) seem to be pointing at the same ‘effective’ theory for us lower dimensional dwellers in crash-helmets (just in case the chaos goes twisted, again).

ed.
Bikerman
newolder wrote:

Feynman et al’s quantum electrodynamics hinted at the final test for an alien to be made of anti-matter: “Which hand (left, right, both, neither or no hands?) does it proffer in greeting?” and signatures from reality (COBE, WMAP &c) suggest no hint of anti-matter black holes in the neighbourhood. Yet.

Happy to accept this correction (always happy to have input from you, especially when referencing work from one of my heros - RF).
silkmesh
Wow, Chris and Ed, you two better spend more time on this and create a theory. People get paid for this stuff.

I am no expert and never made any statements to that effect.

So my own input can be laught at, scorned and rubbished or can it? From the facts that have been proven about the universe by science, many inteligent men have invented a very complexed set theories, these are only theories and not facts.

I have looked at the problem logically and analectically to obtain a possible simple solution. However its up to the reader to come up with their own opinion, or to make themselves look bright by offering a few red herrings that look good but is that really clever?

I dont think any of us here are bright enough to come up with the truth with out solid facts and not use the theories of others based on a mathimatical system that has not been fully proven.

THATS WHY THE EXPERTS STATE THEORY GUYS

My own rendering is of cause my theory and note I stated PERHAPS. Guys read my articals carefully before you make statements please,

Best regards
Bikerman
silkmesh wrote:
Wow, Chris and Ed, you two better spend more time on this and create a theory. People get paid for this stuff.

I am no expert and never made any statements to that effect.

So my own input can be laught at, scorned and rubbished or can it? From the facts that have been proven about the universe by science, many inteligent men have invented a very complexed set theories, these are only theories and not facts.

I was not intending to ridicule or scorn your thoughts, and am sorry if that was the impression I gave. I was merely attempting to add what I understand to be current thinking on the matter.
I would, however, urge caution with words like 'theory' and 'fact'. It is a topic which I frequently post on so I'll be brief here in pointing out the problem. Science does not deal in concept like 'truth' and the word 'fact' should be understood in that light. Science consists of theories which are backed by experiment and/or observation and constitute the best models we currently have to explain a phenomenon or set of phenomena. Talk of 'theories not facts' is misleading in that it implies that science distinguishes between the two and that one is somehow more 'solid' than the other - that is not the case. All of science is theory, but that does not imply that, as such, it is less 'true' or less understood than things we accept as fact.
PS 'Ed' is an old 'on-line' buddy who I first met on the Elmhurst science forums some time ago, and whose knowledge in these matters far exceeds my own humble musings.
silkmesh
I agree, but read some of the threads, where as some members have quoted theories as facts.

Its just a point.

You cannot give augument agaist someones personal theory with a well known scientific theory as if that theory is a proven fact. How ever in all fairness you can quote the theory as a theory that shows a possible incorrectness.


Best regards
newolder
Bikerman wrote:
silkmesh wrote:
Wow, Chris and Ed, you two better spend more time on this and create a theory. People get paid for this stuff.

I am no expert and never made any statements to that effect.

So my own input can be laught at, scorned and rubbished or can it? From the facts that have been proven about the universe by science, many inteligent men have invented a very complexed set theories, these are only theories and not facts.

I was not intending to ridicule or scorn your thoughts, and am sorry if that was the impression I gave. I was merely attempting to add what I understand to be current thinking on the matter.
I would, however, urge caution with words like 'theory' and 'fact'. It is a topic which I frequently post on so I'll be brief here in pointing out the problem. Science does not deal in concept like 'truth' and the word 'fact' should be understood in that light. Science consists of theories which are backed by experiment and/or observation and constitute the best models we currently have to explain a phenomenon or set of phenomena. Talk of 'theories not facts' is misleading in that it implies that science distinguishes between the two and that one is somehow more 'solid' than the other - that is not the case. All of science is theory, but that does not imply that, as such, it is less 'true' or less understood than things we accept as fact.
PS 'Ed' is an old 'on-line' buddy who I first met on the Elmhurst science forums some time ago, and whose knowledge in these matters far exceeds my own humble musings.


Chris Bikerman>… PS 'Ed' is an old 'on-line' buddy who I first met on the Elmhurst science forums some time ago, and whose knowledge in these matters far exceeds my own humble musings.

I regard this as a) a promotion; b) probably correct and c) >humbling.

a) The time before any connection was made between us two (or more), maps, conformally, to the current state of the machine.

b) Both our knowledges are subsets of what is available and mine is tiny. Yours is probably increasing at a faster rate than mine; ‘what is available’ increases very, very much faster.

c) Is it possible that I sometimes write sense?


Although STS-117 is delayed until April 2007, happy Tuesdays. ed. Smile
silkmesh
Okay thinks I can follow the drift dude but lets get back to the problem


Logic reasoning.

All complex problems have simple solutions such as:

1. The universe will end and there will be a rebirth a new universe out of the ashes of the old

2. Or there are many universes and many end and new ones are born

3. No the universe will never end

Logic solution

Let’s spin a coin and save an headache


Best regards
Bikerman
silkmesh wrote:
Okay thinks I can follow the drift dude but lets get back to the problem


Logic reasoning.

All complex problems have simple solutions such as:

This may be reasoning but it is not logic. Where, in logic, do you find any support for the claim that all complex problems have simple solutions?
newolder
silkmesh wrote:
Okay thinks I can follow the drift dude but lets get back to the problem


Logic reasoning.

All complex problems have simple solutions such as:

1. The universe will end and there will be a rebirth a new universe out of the ashes of the old

2. Or there are many universes and many end and new ones are born

3. No the universe will never end

Logic solution

Let’s spin a coin and save an headache


Best regards


Hi silkmesh,

All problems are soluble (David Deutsch, 2006*) but inexpert philosophising always yields such circular reasoning.

Put simply, all we have to do, to make a start, is agree on the definition of the problem: i.e. what observation is to be discussed.

Next, apply the analysis methods from in the best available toolkit, e.g. those supplied by Euclid, Newton, Liebnitz, Gauss, Planck, Einstein, Minkowski, Kaluza, Klein, Schrödinger, Dirac, Veneziano, Penrose, Hawking, van t’Hooft, Steinhardt and Turok et al on a chaotic background. Collectively, these methods are held in a container known as unitary group in three dimensions, U(3).

The results are inevitable but sometimes shocking. ed.

P.S. Which of the three outcomes of tossing a coin (heads, tails, all other outcomes) would save a headache?

* http://tedblog.typepad.com/tedblog/2006/09/david_deutsch_o.html
Bikerman
silkmesh wrote:
I agree, but read some of the threads, where as some members have quoted theories as facts.

Its just a point.

You cannot give augument agaist someones personal theory with a well known scientific theory as if that theory is a proven fact. How ever in all fairness you can quote the theory as a theory that shows a possible incorrectness.

No...I don't think you have yet understood the point. I'll try to explain.
a) Theory - model supported by observation, experiment and subjected to peer review. Theory explains 'fact'.
b) Fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)
c) Someone's personal theory - not a theory at all, at best a hypothesis unless it conforms to point a, and most often mere speculation.
I hope that helps clarify...

0,1,2,many,many1,many2,many many....
silkmesh
The solution is always very simple, but the finder normally makes the solution difficult to understand, normally to show that he or she is an expert.

The actual process of finding a solution can be an headache. In this case it’s not just a point of bathing in a hot bath a finalizing with expressive shout of eureka. As there is no true proven facts only theory models, ideas and a set of mathematic equations that could be flawed. I would really want to see the water be displaced before working out an excepted answer that would look feasible.

Tossing a coin sounds good to me at present, as the problem at hand can not be solved with out solid proof. However in reality I feel that a Logic possible answer is more acceptable to my own understanding and that’s the answer I have used in my book.

You all keep arguing on the issue but please add logic thought to your conclusions and try to be open minded and not use the views of others as they could be wrong. That’s the trouble with any science today there is not enough thought to the what if's only to the so call scientific rules in this case physics. Some of the rules are erroneous!

Of course my own possible answer could be wrong, I dont really care as I am only interested in enviromental brainwashing, culture, religion, politics and how this so called civilized society on earth can be at peace with each other.


Best regards
Bikerman
silkmesh wrote:
The solution is always very simple, but the finder normally makes the solution difficult to understand, normally to show that he or she is an expert.
Well you may be assured that I will not do so since I am a self-confessed amateur non-scientist. I disagree that the solution is always very simple though....my own reading of physics is that lot's of it requires lot's of calculation and is far from simple...maybe that is a reflection of my own poor abilities in math (which I freely acknowledge).
Quote:
The actual process of finding a solution can be an headache. In this case it’s not just a point of bathing in a hot bath a finalizing with expressive shout of eureka. As there is no true proven facts only theory models, ideas and a set of mathematic equations that could be flawed. I would really want to see the water be displaced before working out an excepted answer that would look feasible.

You consistently miss the point which I have been trying to gently introduce into your thinking. 'Proven facts' is a non-science concept. The point is
<lecture mode on>
No explanation of an observation can be said to be 'true' regardless of how many times it is confirmed by repeats. The simple example is
observation: 'the Sun has risen every morning for billions of years
theory: the Sun will rise tomorrow.
Validity: invalid. One day the Sun will certainly not do so.

This is known as the problem of induction and is the central reason why science does not deal in words like 'proven facts'. The issue was dealt with by Popper's notion of 'refutability' as the distinction between science and non-science.
<lecture mode off>
Quote:

Tossing a coin sounds good to me at present, as the problem at hand can not be solved with out solid proof. However in reality I feel that a Logic possible answer is more acceptable to my own understanding and that’s the answer I have used in my book.
I'm sorry to say, then, that I believe the book must be based on a central fallacy - the idea that 'solid proof' is a possibility
Quote:
You all keep arguing on the issue but please add logic thought to your conclusions and try to be open minded and not use the views of others as they could be wrong. That’s the trouble with any science today there is not enough thought to the what if's only to the so call scientific rules in this case physics. Some of the rules are erroneous!
First you must show which of the rules are erroneous. Starting from the point that 'there must be a mistake somewhere so why could proposition x not be true' is a nonsense. When you have demonstrated which rules are erroneous then posit an alternative and, most importantly, posit which observations would refute your new posit. Then you are doing what I personally understand to be science.
newolder
silkmesh wrote:
...
You all keep arguing on the issue but please add logic thought to your conclusions and try to be open minded and not use the views of others as they could be wrong. That’s the trouble with any science today there is not enough thought to the what if's only to the so call scientific rules in this case physics. Some of the rules are erroneous!
...


Axiomatic logic was shown to be an inadequate tool of explanation by Russell and Godel in the early 20th century: any system of logic can be shown to produce statements to the effect: "This statement is true if, and only if, this statement is false." (See also, The Bayesian approach*.)

Which of the 'rules' are a) erroneous and b) broken by modern physics and mathematics, please? Note: Your answer is to include relevant urls, please. ed. Smile

* http://www.bayesian.org/
silkmesh
Ok

Ill let you have the last word.

What URLs you after pal?

Is this a case of pistols for two and coffee for one?
newolder
silkmesh wrote:
Ok

Ill let you have the last word.

What URLs you after pal?

Is this a case of pistols for two and coffee for one?


?

To repeat, the questions are, "Which 'rules' are a) erroneous and b) broken by modern physics and mathematics?"

If you have no urls to hand, ISBNs will suffice.

The next word is with you.

ed. Rolling Eyes

PS ed <> pal. Smile
silkmesh
Quote:

Please use quote tags, identify the source and add a little original thought when copying and pasting the work of another.

Big Bang Theory, currently accepted explanation of the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.

The theory is based on the mathematical equations, known as the field equations, of the general theory of relativity set forth in 1915 by Albert Einstein. In 1922 Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann provided a set of solutions to the field equations. These solutions have served as the framework for much of the current theoretical work on the big bang theory. American astronomer Edwin Hubble provided some of the greatest supporting evidence for the theory with his 1929 discovery that the light of distant galaxies was universally shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (see Redshift). Once “tired light” theories—that light slowly loses energy naturally, becoming more red over time—were dismissed, this shift proved that the galaxies were moving away from each other. Hubble found that galaxies farther away were moving away proportionally faster, showing that the universe is expanding uniformly. However, the universe’s initial state was still unknown
In the 1940s Russian-American physicist George Gamow worked out a theory that fit with Friedmann’s solutions in which the universe expanded from a hot, dense state. In 1950 British astronomer Fred Hoyle, in support of his own opposing steady-state theory, referred to Gamow’s theory as a mere “big bang,” but the name stuck. Indeed, a contest in the 1990s by Sky & Telescope magazine to find a better (perhaps more dignified) name did not produce one.
The overall framework of the big bang theory came out of solutions to Einstein’s general relativity field equations and remains unchanged, but various details of the theory are still being modified today. Einstein himself initially believed that the universe was static. When his equations seemed to imply that the universe was expanding or contracting, Einstein added a constant term to cancel out the expansion or contraction of the universe. When the expansion of the universe was later discovered, Einstein stated that introducing this “cosmological constant” had been a mistake.
After Einstein’s work of 1917, several scientists, including the abbé Georges Lemaître in Belgium, Willem de Sitter in Holland, and Alexander Friedmann in Russia, succeeded in finding solutions to Einstein’s field equations. The universes described by the different solutions varied. De Sitter’s model had no matter in it. This model is actually not a bad approximation since the average density of the universe is extremely low. Lemaître’s universe expanded from a “primeval atom.” Friedmann’s universe also expanded from a very dense clump of matter, but did not involve the cosmological constant. These models explained how the universe behaved shortly after its creation, but there was still no satisfactory explanation for the beginning of the universe.
In the 1940s George Gamow was joined by his students Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in working out details of Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s theory. They expanded on Gamow’s idea that the universe expanded from a primordial state of matter called ylem consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons in a sea of radiation. They theorized the universe was very hot at the time of the big bang (the point at which the universe explosively expanded from its primordial state), since elements heavier than hydrogen can be formed only at a high temperature. Alpher and Hermann predicted that radiation from the big bang should still exist. Cosmic background radiation roughly corresponding to the temperature predicted by Gamow’s team was detected in the 1960s, further supporting the big bang theory, though the work of Alpher, Herman, and Gamow had been forgotten.
The big bang theory seeks to explain what happened at or soon after the beginning of the universe. Scientists can now model the universe back to 10-43 seconds after the big bang. For the time before that moment, the classical theory of gravity is no longer adequate. Scientists are searching for a theory that merges gravity (as explained by Einstein's general theory of relativity) and quantum mechanics but have not found one yet. Many scientists have hope that string theory, also known as M-theory, will tie together gravity and quantum mechanics and help scientists explore further back in time (see Physics: Unified Field Theory).
Because scientists cannot look back in time beyond that early epoch, the actual big bang is hidden from them. There is no way at present to detect the origin of the universe. Further, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang. It may be that time itself began at the big bang, so that it makes no sense to discuss what happened “before” the big bang.
According to the big bang theory, the universe expanded rapidly in its first microseconds. A single force existed at the beginning of the universe, and as the universe expanded and cooled, this force separated into those we know today: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. A theory called the electroweak theory now provides a unified explanation of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force theory (see Unified Field Theory). Physicists are now searching for a grand unification theory to also incorporate the strong nuclear force. String theory seeks to incorporate the force of gravity with the other three forces, providing a theory of everything (TOE).
One widely accepted version of big bang theory includes the idea of inflation. In this model, the universe expanded much more rapidly at first, to about 1050 times its original size in the first 10-32 second, then slowed its expansion. The theory was advanced in the 1980s by American cosmologist Alan Guth and elaborated upon by American astronomer Paul Steinhardt, Russian American scientist Andrei Linde, and British astronomer Andreas Albrecht. The inflationary universe theory (see Inflationary Theory) solves a number of problems of cosmology. For example, it shows that the universe now appears close to the type of flat space described by the laws of Euclid’s geometry: We see only a tiny region of the original universe, similar to the way we do not notice the curvature of the earth because we see only a small part of it. The inflationary universe also shows why the universe appears so homogeneous. If the universe we observe was inflated from some small, original region, it is not surprising that it appears uniform.
Once the expansion of the initial inflationary era ended, the universe continued to expand more slowly. The inflationary model predicts that the universe is on the boundary between being open and closed. If the universe is open, it will keep expanding forever. If the universe is closed, the expansion of the universe will eventually stop and the universe will begin contracting until it collapses. Whether the universe is open or closed depends on the density, or concentration of mass, in the universe. If the universe is dense enough, it is closed.
The universe cooled as it expanded. After about one second, protons formed. In the following few minutes—often referred to as the “first three minutes”—combinations of protons and neutrons formed the isotope of hydrogen known as deuterium as well as some of the other light elements, principally helium, as well as some lithium, beryllium, and boron. The study of the distribution of deuterium, helium, and the other light elements is now a major field of research. The uniformity of the helium abundance around the universe supports the big bang theory and the abundance of deuterium can be used to estimate the density of matter in the universe.

From about 380,000 to about 1 million years after the big bang, the universe cooled to about 3000°C (about 5000°F) and protons and electrons combined to make hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen atoms can only absorb and emit specific colors, or wavelengths, of light. The formation of atoms allowed many other wavelengths of light, wavelengths that had been interfering with the free electrons, to travel much farther than before. This change set free radiation that we can detect today. After billions of years of cooling, this cosmic background radiation is at about 3 K (-270°C/-454°F).The cosmic background radiation was first detected and identified in 1965 by American astrophysicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.
The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) spacecraft, a project of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), mapped the cosmic background radiation between 1989 and 1993. It verified that the distribution of intensity of the background radiation precisely matched that of matter that emits radiation because of its temperature, as predicted for the big bang theory. It also showed that cosmic background radiation is not uniform, that it varies slightly. These variations are thought to be the seeds from which galaxies and other structures in the universe grew.
Evidence indicates that the matter that scientists detect in the universe is only a small fraction of all the matter that exists. For example, observations of the speeds at which individual galaxies move within clusters of galaxies show that a great deal of unseen matter must exist to exert sufficient gravitational force to keep the clusters from flying apart. Cosmologists now think that much of the universe is dark matter—matter that has gravity but does not give off radiation that we can see or otherwise detect. One kind of dark matter theorized by scientists is cold dark matter, with slowly moving (cold) massive particles. No such particles have yet been detected, though astronomers have made up fanciful names for them, such as Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs). Other cold dark matter could be nonradiating stars or planets, which are known as MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects).
An alternative theory that explains the dark-matter model involves hot dark matter, where hot implies that the particles are moving very fast. Neutrinos, fundamental particles that travel at nearly the speed of light, are the prime example of hot dark matter. However, scientists think that the mass of a neutrino is so low that neutrinos can only account for a small portion of dark matter. If the inflationary version of big bang theory is correct, then the amount of dark matter and of whatever else might exist is just enough to bring the universe to the boundary between open and closed.
Scientists develop theoretical models to show how the universe’s structures, such as clusters of galaxies, have formed. Their models invoke hot dark matter, cold dark matter, or a mixture of the two. This unseen matter would have provided the gravitational force needed to bring large structures such as clusters of galaxies together. The theories that include dark matter match the observations, although there is no consensus on the type or types of dark matter that must be included. Supercomputers are important for making such models.
Astronomers continue to make new observations that are also interpreted within the framework of the big bang theory. No major problems with the big bang theory have been found, but scientists constantly adjust the theory to match the observed universe. In particular, a “standard model” of the big bang has been established by results from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), launched in 2001 (see Cosmology). The probe studied the anisotropies, or ripples, in the temperature of cosmic background radiation at a higher resolution than COBE was capable of. These ripples indicate that regions of the young universe were very slightly hotter or cooler, by a factor of about 1/1000, than adjacent regions. WMAP’s observations suggest that the rate of expansion of the universe, called Hubble’s constant, is about 71 km/s/Mpc (kilometers per second per million parsecs, where a parsec is about 3.26 light-years). In other words, the distance between any two objects in space that are separated by a million parsecs increases by about 71 km every second in addition to any other motion they may have relative to one another. In combination with previously existing observations, this rate of expansion tells cosmologists that the universe is “flat,” though flatness here does not refer to the actual shape of the universe but rather that the geometric laws that apply to the universe match those of a flat plane.

To be flat, the universe must contain a certain amount of matter and energy, known as the critical density. The distribution of sizes of ripples detected by WMAP show that ordinary matter—like that making up objects and living things on Earth—accounts for only 4.4 percent of the critical density. Dark matter makes up an additional 23 percent. Astoundingly, the remaining 73 percent of the universe is composed of something else—a substance so mysterious that nobody knows much about it. Called “dark energy,” this substance provides the antigravity-like negative pressure that causes the universe's expansion to accelerate rather than slow down. This “accelerating universe” was detected independently by two competing groups of astronomers in the last years of the 20th century. The ideas of an accelerating universe and the existence of dark energy have caused astronomers to substantially modify previous ideas of the big bang universe.
WMAP's results also show that cosmic background radiation was set free about 380,000 years after the big bang, later than was previously thought, and that the first stars formed only 200,000 years after the big bang, earlier than anticipated. Further refinements to the big bang theory are expected from WMAP, which continues to collect data. An even more precise mission to study the beginnings of the universe, the European Space Agency’s Planck spacecraft, is scheduled to be launched in 2007.
newolder
silkmesh wrote:
Big Bang Theory, currently accepted explanation of the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.

The theory is based on the mathematical equations, known as the field equations, of the general theory of relativity set forth in 1915 by Albert Einstein. In 1922 Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann provided a set of solutions to the field equations. These solutions have served as the framework for much of the current theoretical work on the big bang theory. American astronomer Edwin Hubble provided some of the greatest supporting evidence for the theory with his 1929 discovery that the light of distant galaxies was universally shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (see Redshift). Once “tired light” theories—that light slowly loses energy naturally, becoming more red over time—were dismissed, this shift proved that the galaxies were moving away from each other. Hubble found that galaxies farther away were moving away proportionally faster, showing that the universe is expanding uniformly. However, the universe’s initial state was still unknown
In the 1940s Russian-American physicist George Gamow worked out a theory that fit with Friedmann’s solutions in which the universe expanded from a hot, dense state. In 1950 British astronomer Fred Hoyle, in support of his own opposing steady-state theory, referred to Gamow’s theory as a mere “big bang,” but the name stuck. Indeed, a contest in the 1990s by Sky & Telescope magazine to find a better (perhaps more dignified) name did not produce one.
The overall framework of the big bang theory came out of solutions to Einstein’s general relativity field equations and remains unchanged, but various details of the theory are still being modified today. Einstein himself initially believed that the universe was static. When his equations seemed to imply that the universe was expanding or contracting, Einstein added a constant term to cancel out the expansion or contraction of the universe. When the expansion of the universe was later discovered, Einstein stated that introducing this “cosmological constant” had been a mistake.
After Einstein’s work of 1917, several scientists, including the abbé Georges Lemaître in Belgium, Willem de Sitter in Holland, and Alexander Friedmann in Russia, succeeded in finding solutions to Einstein’s field equations. The universes described by the different solutions varied. De Sitter’s model had no matter in it. This model is actually not a bad approximation since the average density of the universe is extremely low. Lemaître’s universe expanded from a “primeval atom.” Friedmann’s universe also expanded from a very dense clump of matter, but did not involve the cosmological constant. These models explained how the universe behaved shortly after its creation, but there was still no satisfactory explanation for the beginning of the universe.
In the 1940s George Gamow was joined by his students Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in working out details of Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s theory. They expanded on Gamow’s idea that the universe expanded from a primordial state of matter called ylem consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons in a sea of radiation. They theorized the universe was very hot at the time of the big bang (the point at which the universe explosively expanded from its primordial state), since elements heavier than hydrogen can be formed only at a high temperature. Alpher and Hermann predicted that radiation from the big bang should still exist. Cosmic background radiation roughly corresponding to the temperature predicted by Gamow’s team was detected in the 1960s, further supporting the big bang theory, though the work of Alpher, Herman, and Gamow had been forgotten.
The big bang theory seeks to explain what happened at or soon after the beginning of the universe. Scientists can now model the universe back to 10-43 seconds after the big bang. For the time before that moment, the classical theory of gravity is no longer adequate. Scientists are searching for a theory that merges gravity (as explained by Einstein's general theory of relativity) and quantum mechanics but have not found one yet. Many scientists have hope that string theory, also known as M-theory, will tie together gravity and quantum mechanics and help scientists explore further back in time (see Physics: Unified Field Theory).
Because scientists cannot look back in time beyond that early epoch, the actual big bang is hidden from them. There is no way at present to detect the origin of the universe. Further, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang. It may be that time itself began at the big bang, so that it makes no sense to discuss what happened “before” the big bang.
According to the big bang theory, the universe expanded rapidly in its first microseconds. A single force existed at the beginning of the universe, and as the universe expanded and cooled, this force separated into those we know today: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. A theory called the electroweak theory now provides a unified explanation of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force theory (see Unified Field Theory). Physicists are now searching for a grand unification theory to also incorporate the strong nuclear force. String theory seeks to incorporate the force of gravity with the other three forces, providing a theory of everything (TOE).
One widely accepted version of big bang theory includes the idea of inflation. In this model, the universe expanded much more rapidly at first, to about 1050 times its original size in the first 10-32 second, then slowed its expansion. The theory was advanced in the 1980s by American cosmologist Alan Guth and elaborated upon by American astronomer Paul Steinhardt, Russian American scientist Andrei Linde, and British astronomer Andreas Albrecht. The inflationary universe theory (see Inflationary Theory) solves a number of problems of cosmology. For example, it shows that the universe now appears close to the type of flat space described by the laws of Euclid’s geometry: We see only a tiny region of the original universe, similar to the way we do not notice the curvature of the earth because we see only a small part of it. The inflationary universe also shows why the universe appears so homogeneous. If the universe we observe was inflated from some small, original region, it is not surprising that it appears uniform.
Once the expansion of the initial inflationary era ended, the universe continued to expand more slowly. The inflationary model predicts that the universe is on the boundary between being open and closed. If the universe is open, it will keep expanding forever. If the universe is closed, the expansion of the universe will eventually stop and the universe will begin contracting until it collapses. Whether the universe is open or closed depends on the density, or concentration of mass, in the universe. If the universe is dense enough, it is closed.
The universe cooled as it expanded. After about one second, protons formed. In the following few minutes—often referred to as the “first three minutes”—combinations of protons and neutrons formed the isotope of hydrogen known as deuterium as well as some of the other light elements, principally helium, as well as some lithium, beryllium, and boron. The study of the distribution of deuterium, helium, and the other light elements is now a major field of research. The uniformity of the helium abundance around the universe supports the big bang theory and the abundance of deuterium can be used to estimate the density of matter in the universe.

From about 380,000 to about 1 million years after the big bang, the universe cooled to about 3000°C (about 5000°F) and protons and electrons combined to make hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen atoms can only absorb and emit specific colors, or wavelengths, of light. The formation of atoms allowed many other wavelengths of light, wavelengths that had been interfering with the free electrons, to travel much farther than before. This change set free radiation that we can detect today. After billions of years of cooling, this cosmic background radiation is at about 3 K (-270°C/-454°F).The cosmic background radiation was first detected and identified in 1965 by American astrophysicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.
The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) spacecraft, a project of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), mapped the cosmic background radiation between 1989 and 1993. It verified that the distribution of intensity of the background radiation precisely matched that of matter that emits radiation because of its temperature, as predicted for the big bang theory. It also showed that cosmic background radiation is not uniform, that it varies slightly. These variations are thought to be the seeds from which galaxies and other structures in the universe grew.
Evidence indicates that the matter that scientists detect in the universe is only a small fraction of all the matter that exists. For example, observations of the speeds at which individual galaxies move within clusters of galaxies show that a great deal of unseen matter must exist to exert sufficient gravitational force to keep the clusters from flying apart. Cosmologists now think that much of the universe is dark matter—matter that has gravity but does not give off radiation that we can see or otherwise detect. One kind of dark matter theorized by scientists is cold dark matter, with slowly moving (cold) massive particles. No such particles have yet been detected, though astronomers have made up fanciful names for them, such as Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs). Other cold dark matter could be nonradiating stars or planets, which are known as MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects).
An alternative theory that explains the dark-matter model involves hot dark matter, where hot implies that the particles are moving very fast. Neutrinos, fundamental particles that travel at nearly the speed of light, are the prime example of hot dark matter. However, scientists think that the mass of a neutrino is so low that neutrinos can only account for a small portion of dark matter. If the inflationary version of big bang theory is correct, then the amount of dark matter and of whatever else might exist is just enough to bring the universe to the boundary between open and closed.
Scientists develop theoretical models to show how the universe’s structures, such as clusters of galaxies, have formed. Their models invoke hot dark matter, cold dark matter, or a mixture of the two. This unseen matter would have provided the gravitational force needed to bring large structures such as clusters of galaxies together. The theories that include dark matter match the observations, although there is no consensus on the type or types of dark matter that must be included. Supercomputers are important for making such models.
Astronomers continue to make new observations that are also interpreted within the framework of the big bang theory. No major problems with the big bang theory have been found, but scientists constantly adjust the theory to match the observed universe. In particular, a “standard model” of the big bang has been established by results from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), launched in 2001 (see Cosmology). The probe studied the anisotropies, or ripples, in the temperature of cosmic background radiation at a higher resolution than COBE was capable of. These ripples indicate that regions of the young universe were very slightly hotter or cooler, by a factor of about 1/1000, than adjacent regions. WMAP’s observations suggest that the rate of expansion of the universe, called Hubble’s constant, is about 71 km/s/Mpc (kilometers per second per million parsecs, where a parsec is about 3.26 light-years). In other words, the distance between any two objects in space that are separated by a million parsecs increases by about 71 km every second in addition to any other motion they may have relative to one another. In combination with previously existing observations, this rate of expansion tells cosmologists that the universe is “flat,” though flatness here does not refer to the actual shape of the universe but rather that the geometric laws that apply to the universe match those of a flat plane.

To be flat, the universe must contain a certain amount of matter and energy, known as the critical density. The distribution of sizes of ripples detected by WMAP show that ordinary matter—like that making up objects and living things on Earth—accounts for only 4.4 percent of the critical density. Dark matter makes up an additional 23 percent. Astoundingly, the remaining 73 percent of the universe is composed of something else—a substance so mysterious that nobody knows much about it. Called “dark energy,” this substance provides the antigravity-like negative pressure that causes the universe's expansion to accelerate rather than slow down. This “accelerating universe” was detected independently by two competing groups of astronomers in the last years of the 20th century. The ideas of an accelerating universe and the existence of dark energy have caused astronomers to substantially modify previous ideas of the big bang universe.
WMAP's results also show that cosmic background radiation was set free about 380,000 years after the big bang, later than was previously thought, and that the first stars formed only 200,000 years after the big bang, earlier than anticipated. Further refinements to the big bang theory are expected from WMAP, which continues to collect data. An even more precise mission to study the beginnings of the universe, the European Space Agency’s Planck spacecraft, is scheduled to be launched in 2007.


A fine summary of 20th century physics.

The Planck telescope, Newsletter #8, is here :: http://www.rssd.esa.int/SA/PLANCK/docs/Newsletters/PlanckNewsletter8.pdf

Launch is still some time away…

If you wish to update your interest, Neil Turok’s recent publication list is a good start*. The superstring revolution began in 1998, iirc.

And the Penrose World Tour of 2006-2007** is worth keeping an open eye out for too.

Cheers again, ed. Smile

* http://arxiv.org/find/hep-th/1/au:+turok/0/1/0/all/0/1
** http://www.bnl.gov/video/lectures.asp "Before the Big Bang: a novel solution to a deep cosmological puzzle."
Indi
newolder wrote:
silkmesh wrote:
<snip stolen text>


A fine summary of 20th century physics.

Yes. A shame that it was plagiarised.
newolder
Oooppss! ed. Embarassed
newolder
newolder wrote:
Indi wrote:
newolder wrote:
silkmesh wrote:
<snip stolen text>


A fine summary of 20th century physics.

Yes. A shame that it was plagiarised.


Ah! Encarta, if i read your url correctly, Indi? I'm sure they'd pursue silkmesh further, if they knew... ed.
silkmesh
No the source that Encarta used. All copyright observed (Newzealand reaseacher, published in a newzealand peridical)

But now let look at my argument and stop getting bitchy.
Quote:

Quote tags are required anytime you are pasting an article!


Another Creation Theory Bites the Dust

By Stephen Knapp

As a subscriber to the Vedic description of a Divinely guided process of cosmic manifestation, I’ve witnessed various creation theories that have been developed by materialistic science come and go. There seems to be a need amongst such scientists to develop a version of universal creation that leaves no room or no reason for a Supreme Creator, and thus many materialistic and even atheistic forms of the creation story are presented. The most recent, called the Big Bang Theory, has gained wide acceptance by numerous scientists and scholars, but is now also running into problems. To explain it far too briefly, this is the theory that creation started from a single explosion or expansion of a condensed particle of matter, or a single kernel of energy as it has been called, a seed, smaller than an atom. This is estimated to have occurred around 10 to 20 billion years ago, and this substance spread throughout the universe to form the cosmos as we find it today.

The basis of this theory, as explained scientifically, is that we owe the creation of the universe to the breaking away of the absolute symmetry of the absolute emptiness that existed before the creation began. There is a theory called vacuum genesis, which suggests that the universe began from a single particle arising from an absolute vacuum. A particle so powerful that it gave raise to the cosmic creation. Of course, a particle from nothing is admittedly not very likely. But it is a theory that they still work with, possibly for a lack of anything else.

The premise of the Big Bang Theory is based on the Redshift, the evidence that the universe seems to be expanding. This is when the wavelength of the light from a distant celestial object shifts toward the longer wavelength. This is figured to be caused by the Doppler Effect that the space between the objects giving the light is increasing, caused by an expanding universe. The Vedic version of the universal creation is that it was created by the guidance of the Supreme Being and, indeed, has been steadily expanding. But this does not imply an unnatural Big Bang from which everything appeared. The bottom line is that the Big Bang Theory is founded on a few assumptions that if ever negated or proven wrong will dismiss the whole theory. And, low and behold, it seems that after a closer look into this theory, there are some major flaws that prevent it from being acceptable for everyone.

Jayant Narlikar, the space scientist, has presented three major problems found in the Big Bang Theory. One is that the law of conservation of matter and energy is not upheld within this theory. Secondly, this theory offers no calculations of the early ages of the universe that can properly deduce the temperature of the microwave background radiation. Thirdly, though the theory may be able to explain how such substances as helium and deuterium were formed, there are problems in understanding how the nuclei in such substances as lithium, beryllium and boron were created.

Furthermore, the inflation that would have taken place with the Big Bang makes the age of the universe unreasonably small when compared with the estimated ages of the galaxies or globular clusters that are in existence. It also puts a limit on the amount of ordinary matter in the universe, forcing some astronomers to speculate that there must be a large amount of “dark matter” to fill in the spaces. But such dark matter cannot account for the observable superclusters and galaxies, says Anthony Peratt, a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Thus, the superclusters are not what would be expected from the Big Bang model.

One last point is that the smooth nature of the background microwave radiation would not be the result of an explosive beginning, which would have produced a less organized and more chaotic or unsmooth result.

As it stands, science still cannot answer the question regarding what started the explosion of the Big Bang. Where was the original substance, or particle? What caused the creation? Even now science is still looking for another theory that can explain how nature would have behaved at the time of the threshold of creation under the extreme conditions during the original explosion of the Big Bang. How would it have happened in a way that caused the original atoms that then changed into forms that paved the way for all of the additional atoms to have developed? Because of these concerns and problems, along with others not mentioned, some scientists now feel that the Big Bang Theory is “thoroughly unsatisfactory” as an explanation of the universe’s origin. Besides, even if there was a Big Bang origin, where did consciousness come from? Why would there now be a bunch of entities running around trying to figure this out and not merely a bunch of dust and molecules drifting through space?

For me, it is to be expected. It has been another theory that at first is applauded as the answer to the questions, yet with time is found to be too faulty, typical of the ever-changing scientific process that starts with one theory and in time gives way to something else. It is even admitted by science that the cause of the creation is “almost supernatural”. So it is still a mystery–why is there anything instead of nothing?

In science you cannot go outside the creation to find its cause. However, the Vedic version does indeed take us to the point before there was anything at all in the cosmic creation. That is the difference. The Vedic version points out that the cause of the creation is indeed outside the universe, just as an architect for a building may be living outside the building, someplace else rather than within it. Science still owes a lot to religion. Science still accepts that we have a “uni-verse”, a single system governed by a single set of laws. This admittedly is based on the religious concept of one God, one creator, and thus one system of laws, and a single source from which everything began. That is what the Vedanta Sutras explain, that the Absolute Truth is “He from whom all else manifests.” So to me, the faults found within the scientific creation theories only lends further credence to a Divine Source for the material manifestation. It also shows that there are many answers that can be found by researching the Vedic version of the Divinely guided creation, as I have explained in my book, “How the Universe was Created”, to detail the Vedic description of how it happened.

Available at: http://www.stephen-knapp.com
silkmesh
At a closer look one can find that any paradox arises only from an inconsistent physical concept or other errors in logic.

A quote from: http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk

There are others that can see the errors in some of the modules and within the maths

I can supply many more URL's if you wish plus of course quoting my sources.

Suggest you study the subject more, before making stupid mistakes thinking that every theory and module is so bloody correct. Keep an open mind.

What if!

Best Regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins
newolder
silkmesh wrote:
At a closer look one can find that any paradox arises only from an inconsistent physical concept or other errors in logic.

A quote from: http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk

There are others that can see the errors in some of the modules and within the maths

I can supply many more URL's if you wish plus of course quoting my sources.

Suggest you study the subject more, before making stupid mistakes thinking that every theory and module is so bloody correct. Keep an open mind.

What if!

Best Regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins


What if physics is soluble?*

The maths needed can be explained to, understood by and extended by anyone that studies enough, imho, and i'm as thick as a Planck! ed. Rolling Eyes

Ans: It is and, "The more you know, the more you know.", http://www.brainpop.com
silkmesh
I very sorry

I made a mistake the research article did come from Encarta of course that was very naughty of me not to check my original research files.

Please forgive me Bill Gates, I neglected to give respect to your companies copyright. I will now put that right.

Big Bang Theory," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007
http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
© 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Please do not sue me, I promise I will not do that again, cross my heart and hope to die.

Best Regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins
silkmesh
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It's the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead." ~ Albert Einstein (1930).

Very good site for the big bang
For: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

Very good argument against the big bang
Against http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_10.htm

Interesting questions and points here
http://members.tripod.com/debatorial_works/id125.htm

One should be carefull what you ask for.....

The main questions are what existed before the big bang and why did the universe seemly create it self from nothing? Okay we have some evidence that the Big Bang happened.

Is science going to admit that there is a super inteligence, being or even a god behind all this magic?

Huh no logic does not exist consern this science!

Best Regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins
silkmesh
What if physics is soluble?

"What if" it is not"

Keep an open mind my friend, an open mind!

Best Regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins
newolder
silkmesh wrote:
What if physics is soluble?

"What if" it is not"

Keep an open mind my friend, an open mind!

Best Regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins


?

And an example that demonstrates it isn't, is what, precisely? ed.

P.S. An open mind is okay, as long as your brain doesn't fall out. http://www.rat-rant.com/drupal/node/1036
silkmesh
Oldnew, such humor, such panance, I am beginning to like you ducky.

I just love jokes, but perchance, was it sarcasms, no of course it’s below you scientific mind.

Ah ah “And an example that demonstrates it isn't, is what, precisely? Ed” um um, what you mean sweetheart.

I just love a Geek!

You seem to have a problem, I think you could be gay, or have a problem with women? Or is it your logic has gone, as you do sound very femine with the questions. I had a wife like you once.

"What if" means that one will alway question and experiment.

An openminded means not to be bias at someone elses ideas and thoughts. Never say never etc.

Best regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins
newolder
silkmesh wrote:
Oldnew, such humor, such panance, I am beginning to like you ducky.

I just love jokes, but perchance, was it sarcasms, no of course it’s below you scientific mind.

Ah ah “And an example that demonstrates it isn't, is what, precisely? Ed” um um, what you mean sweetheart.

I just love a Geek!

You seem to have a problem, I think you could be gay, or have a problem with women? Or is it your logic has gone, as you do sound very femine with the questions. I had a wife like you once.

"What if" means that one will alway question and experiment.

An openminded means not to be bias at someone elses ideas and thoughts. Never say never etc.

Best regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins


silkmesh,

Have you drivelled similarly for some time or is this a new condition that is triggered solely by your visits to science fora?

Time to move on.

Bye silkmesh. ed. Cool
Bikerman
silkmesh wrote:
Oldnew, such humor, such panance, I am beginning to like you ducky.

I just love jokes, but perchance, was it sarcasms, no of course it’s below you scientific mind.

Ah ah “And an example that demonstrates it isn't, is what, precisely? Ed” um um, what you mean sweetheart.

I just love a Geek!

You seem to have a problem, I think you could be gay, or have a problem with women? Or is it your logic has gone, as you do sound very femine with the questions. I had a wife like you once.
This is offensive as well as being drivel. If you can't express yourself in civil terms without using offensive and stereotypical insults then you are not someone I would wish to debate further with....As newolder said..time to move on.
silkmesh
May be? But I thought you could have at least insulted me with the venom of an intelligent man, you hit me with your heavy feather below the belt like a thug.

I have seen any good input from you, go on be a dare devil write something really interesting and liven up this forum.

Be a man of words with true conviction not un-intellectual observations of a pack rat.

Hey and learn to insult better and not utter and bleat like a pregnant goat.

Best Regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins
Bikerman
silkmesh wrote:
May be? But I thought you could have at least insulted me with the venom of an intelligent man, you hit me with your heavy feather below the belt like a thug.

I have seen any good input from you, go on be a dare devil write something really interesting and liven up this forum.

Be a man of words with true conviction not un-intellectual observations of a pack rat.

Hey and learn to insult better and not utter and bleat like a pregnant goat.

Best Regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins

That is where we differ. Nothing I posted was meant as an insult (I cannot actually even see how any of it could be construed that way). I do not regard 'quality of insult' as something to strive for since insulting your opponent is merely an admission of failure in your own case and is an example of the ad hominem fallicy in debate.
If you have to post personal attack and venomous comment to liven up a forum then, in my opinion, the forum is not worth posting in.
silkmesh
Yes the forum has livened up!

If you dont want to be in an enjoyable forum Chris you know what to do.
Aproximatly 1113 boring posts, Chris wonderful history

No its okay chris (I am joking) I will leave this forum in a month or so as my input will dry up by then. Ill leave you alone and not answer your comments it seems your a bit touchy and cant take goading.

Best wishes
evilryu530
yea i thnkso,but not in our lifetime, they say every the life cycle of a galaxy every 66 million years, universe is porbably more than that...
Indi
evilryu530 wrote:
they say every the life cycle of a galaxy every 66 million years, universe is porbably more than that...

Who says that? And why? Given that the accepted age of the Earth is in the range of 4.5 billion years... 66 million years seems a little short.
silkmesh
An accepted age of the universe can be found here

http://webferret.search.com/click?wf,how+old+is+the+universe,,map.gsfc.nasa.gov%2Fm_uni%2Funi_101age.html,,aol[url]

Glad to be of some help.

Best regards
Bikerman
An estimate of the age of the Milky Way galaxy, on the other hand, can be found here
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_age_040817.html
silkmesh
Thanks chris

Regards

Bob
Shake
Long after we're all dead...I hope.
silkmesh
Yes I would put money on that.

However we will find someone will post that the doom and gloom will happen on the 5th July and we should all head towards the mountains.

However life is good

best Regards
smarter
all cosmological theories are highly speculative so i'll be more careful making statements about the fate of the universe!

Wikipedia wrote:

Cosmology
Recent observations made by the COBE and WMAP satellites observing this background radiation have effectively, in many scientists' eyes, transformed cosmology from a highly speculative science into a predictive science, Laughing Laughing Laughing as these observations matched predictions made by a theory called Cosmic inflation, which is a modification of the standard big bang theory.


You don't say!

If something is highly debated (I'm not talking about details!) or controversial (let's say more than 20% of scientists in the field oppose the other 80%) you can bet we're not talking about real science! We're talking about HYPOTHESES! If you have a pile of bricks it doesn't mean that you have a house!

We're just beginning to put small bits and pieces together!
silkmesh
As promised THE DRAFTS at:

http://silkmesh.freespaces.com/book.html

Best Regards

[/url]
Bikerman
Appeal to moderator. Is it OK to post adverts ?
silkmesh
Chris,

Actually I think the moderator should look at your advert about http://camres.frih.net/index.php Campaign for Science.

Chris I am not making any money out of my freely accessed Book of which campaigns for world understanding and world peace, read it find out for your self http://silkmesh.freespaces.com/ It may change the way you think. May stop you being a jerk and then your mummy will love you again. I am trying not to post here again in any case as I have better things to do such as painting and spending time on my very beautiful young wife.

Best regards
silkmesh
Dear Moderator,

I feel that you have a great sense of humor and that you some times get very anoyed at some of the bigots on this site.

When anybody gives an interesting view and livens up the forums others get jelous or stupid and state the most stupid and childish things mainly to look brainy. These people never post anything of real interest and seemly have fun rubbishing other peoples logic and sensible views.

I hope that my short stay here as given you some belly laughs. Thanks for letting me loose with out restriction.

I will not post here again unless asked by a forum member personally (bobearlscourt@yahoo.co.uk) or htpp://silkmesh.freespaces.com/contact.html.

Goodbye

Best Wishes
Bikerman
I have not pushed my site at all. Neither does it contain any sort of advertising, neither has it got any commercial relationship to any entity apart from me and the host provider which is a normal hosting agreement.
The specific reference was in reply to a request for information.
HoboPelican
Guys, you are straying away from the topic, and at this time, that is the biggest issue I see.

My interpretation of the rules (and another mod may disagree here) is the Bikerman's link in his sig is fine. In reply to B-man's query, I believe that a link to Silkmesh's site is acceptable, as long as it is non-profit. Links where the user gets a material gain are not allowed.

BTW-for all practical purposes, the universe will end when I die....at least for me.Wink
benjmd
I tried to read all the posts but it was too much to read, so I'll just respond to what I had read so far.

First, science tends to define the Universe as the totality of matter and energy. Space and time are elements of measure that are used by human beings to represent dimensions through which to understand matter and energy.

Second, there are two elements to knowledge: relative knowledge and absolute knowledge. Science operates through relative knowledge. Everything is based on our perceptions. Clearly the Universe is expanding into an infinite amount of space, but the dimensions of that space are meaningless to us because we have no markers with which to measure it. The "Universe," however, is measurable because it consists of discrete items. Absolute knowledge would then refer to a statement describing the totality of existence, beyond that which is perceivable/measurable.

Someone brought up the theory that the Universe will burn out and basically exist as useless energy and suggested that that wasn't really much to call a Universe precisely because all of the interactions we now use to describe the dimensions of the Universe will be null (including ourselves). The problem with this assertion and with relying exclusively on the relative knowledge of science is that all points of measure are, in fact, relative. It seems to me that this reasoning would imply that as soon as conscious life ceases to exist that the Universe would cease to exist because it is a construct of our own perceptual design. That our measures are useless in the burned out Universe doesn't mean much since our measures are also useless if we are not there to use them!

Absolute knowledge, however, is something several people in this thread are grasping for a glimpse of. They want to know what is beyond the matter and energy, what happens after everything has already happened. Well, I have no answers for you there except to say that I don't think you can ever derive your desired answers. They delve into understanding infinity.
Bikerman
benjmd wrote:
Second, there are two elements to knowledge: relative knowledge and absolute knowledge. Science operates through relative knowledge. Everything is based on our perceptions. Clearly the Universe is expanding into an infinite amount of space, but the dimensions of that space are meaningless to us because we have no markers with which to measure it.

It's not clear to me that this is the case. Space is part of spacetime and would not, therefore, exist outside the universe. The dimensions are not meaningless in some regards although I accept that the numbers are beyond the grasp of many and certainly beyond the imagination of most (me included). The 'dimensions' of the outside of the universe are, in classic interpretation, non
The idea that everything is perception based is one interpretation of science and a perfectly reasonable one, but not the only one. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics does take this line in some respects but only when interpreted in a very loose manner.
Quote:

The "Universe," however, is measurable because it consists of discrete items. Absolute knowledge would then refer to a statement describing the totality of existence, beyond that which is perceivable/measurable.
So in this sense there is no qualitative difference between Absolute and Relative knowledge since it seems to me that this description would be that relative knowledge is a sub-set of absolute knowledge. Or, another way, absolute knowledge is the maximum boundary of relative knowledge.
Do you believe there is something qualitatively different between the two?
Quote:
Someone brought up the theory that the Universe will burn out and basically exist as useless energy and suggested that that wasn't really much to call a Universe precisely because all of the interactions we now use to describe the dimensions of the Universe will be null (including ourselves). The problem with this assertion and with relying exclusively on the relative knowledge of science is that all points of measure are, in fact, relative. It seems to me that this reasoning would imply that as soon as conscious life ceases to exist that the Universe would cease to exist because it is a construct of our own perceptual design. That our measures are useless in the burned out Universe doesn't mean much since our measures are also useless if we are not there to use them!

Again that is a particular interpretation of quantum physics which, whilst certainly defensible, is
Quote:

Absolute knowledge, however, is something several people in this thread are grasping for a glimpse of. They want to know what is beyond the matter and energy, what happens after everything has already happened. Well, I have no answers for you there except to say that I don't think you can ever derive your desired answers. They delve into understanding infinity.

But you do think there IS an explanation?
silkmesh
Absolute Knowledge and Related knowledge? What we know and what we can surmise or theorize.

The universe will burn out and exist as useless energy? No energy left ( a dead universe)

What is beyond the matter and energy, what happens after everything has already happened. When the universe is dead what will happen? Logically speaking “NOTHING”

What most people want to know is why the universe exists?

Why are we here?

What happen before the Universe was created?

How did the big bang occur?

The answers are beyond our present knowledge and we can do is guess and create theories by using known physical rules and by spinning a coin or two.

WE ARE LIMITED IN OUR FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUESTIONS LET ALONE THE TRUTH.

There can never be an explaination with out absolute knowledge.

Your argument is good but you have not achieved any firm answer to the problem.

Regards
Bikerman
silkmesh wrote:
Absolute Knowledge and Related knowledge? What we know and what we can surmise or theorize.

The universe will burn out and exist as useless energy? No energy left ( a dead universe)


Not really...energy conservation states that the amount of energy/matter is conserved. Whilst it is theorised that elementary particles may well have a 'lifespan', the time in question is a number with an awful lot of zeros after it.
Quote:
What is beyond the matter and energy, what happens after everything has already happened. When the universe is dead what will happen? Logically speaking “NOTHING”
Heat death is one possible scenario - it is not definitive since there is still work going on with influential factors like Dark Matter, Quintessence/Cosmological constant.
Quote:
What most people want to know is why the universe exists?

Why are we here?

What happen before the Universe was created?

How did the big bang occur?

The answers are beyond our present knowledge and we can do is guess and create theories by using known physical rules and by spinning a coin or two.
We do not guess and we do not spin coins (unless conducting a probability exercise of some sort). We hypothesise (make an informed estimate about why something happens), test the hypothesis rigourously, invite professional colleagues to try to tear apart the hypothesis and, if it survives, we have a new theory. There is no need to spin coins and certainly no need for guesswork.
Quote:

WE ARE LIMITED IN OUR FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUESTIONS LET ALONE THE TRUTH.

There can never be an explaination with out absolute knowledge.
Meaningless. If you have absolute knowledge then you have an explanation, by definition, for everything. We currently have good explanations for many things. The idea of absolute knowledge is based on the assumption that there is a knowable explanation for everything - this is far from certain and is, itself, an act of faith.
Quote:

Your argument is good but you have not achieved any firm answer to the problem.

As opposed to you who have ?
silkmesh
Hypothesis could mean any or all of the following:

Premise
Suggestion
Assumption
Guess
Assumption


As Theory means

hypothesis
speculation
assumption
notion
philosophy
concept
model

There is not a lot of difference.

Bikerman wrote

Quote:
We do not guess and we do not spin coins (unless conducting a probability exercise of some sort). We hypothesise (make an informed estimate about why something happens), test the hypothesis rigourously, invite professional colleagues to try to tear apart the hypothesis and, if it survives, we have a new theory. There is no need to spin coins and certainly no need for guesswork.


Lets cut out the scientific language and get to the basic fact its no different than spinning a coin.

Bikerman wrote

Quote:
If you have absolute knowledge then you have an explanation, by definition, for everything. We currently have good explanations for many things. The idea of absolute knowledge is based on the assumption that there is a knowable explanation for everything - this is far from certain and is, itself, an act of faith.Quote:


No! there is an explaination for everything, we gain knowledge by finding the explanation. Theories are mainly based on having some knowledge but lacking in facts that can give a truthfull explaination.

Regards

Terminology can not truly prove that black is white, however it can hide mistaken argument

Sir Winston Churchill
Bikerman
silkmesh wrote:
Hypothesis could mean any or all of the following:

Premise
Suggestion
Assumption
Guess
Assumption

As Theory means

hypothesis
speculation
assumption
notion
philosophy
concept
model

There is not a lot of difference.
Yes, there really is. Science uses the words in a much more specific way than a simple dictionary definition of the general use would indicate. Theory is not the same as hypothesis. Theory is rigorous since it has been through publication, peer review etc. It is not philosophy, speculation, notion or hypothesis - that's why I raised the point.
Quote:

Lets cut out the scientific language and get to the basic fact its no different than spinning a coin.

No, let's not cut out the scientific language - after all, this is a science forum. If you don't understand the basics of how science works, what the basic words and concepts are, how scientific method works; then you are not really able to say anything sensible on science since what you describe is not science, it is some personal opinion of what science is, based on misconception and misunderstanding.
Quote:
No! there is an explaination for everything, we gain knowledge by finding the explanation. Theories are mainly based on having some knowledge but lacking in facts that can give a truthfull explaination.
Show me the basis for that statement. Show me a scientific argument for the statement that 'there is an explanation for everything'. Then I'll be more impressed.
silkmesh
Your argument said it all!

So the scietific mind thinks its all right to call black white where one uses scientific language to prove that is so. Wow

Sorry I am not going to use a alot of scientific jargon to prove that

Quote:
There is an explaination for every thing


That sentence is clear precise and very logicaly true. I am sorry that its beyond your understanding.

I like many other sensible people like things to be clear, truthfull and precise.

Black is Black, White is clearly white and no other shade.

Thanks for trying to explain but I am not enlightened

Regards

[/quote]
Bikerman
silkmesh wrote:
Your argument said it all!

So the scietific mind thinks its all right to call black white where one uses scientific language to prove that is so. Wow
I've not tried to prove anything. I merely pointed out that if you don't know the difference between scientific theory and spinning a coin then it might be an idea to learn before telling us what science is and how it works.
Quote:

Sorry I am not going to use a alot of scientific jargon to prove that
I never asked you to use jargon, just to understand what the basic word 'theory' means in science.
Quote:

Quote:
There is an explaination for every thing


That sentence is clear precise and very logicaly true. I am sorry that its beyond your understanding.

What rule says that there is an explanation for everything? Is it somehow obvious that the whole universe must be constructed in such a way that we can understand it completely? Why is it logically true that this is the case?
silkmesh
Bikeman stated:

Quote:
I've not tried to prove anything. I merely pointed out that if you don't know the difference between scientific theory and spinning a coin then it might be an idea to learn before telling us what science is and how it works


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation


I full understand what theory means. a current theory does not mean thats its factual.

Quote:
What rule says that there is an explanation for everything? Is it somehow obvious that the whole universe must be constructed in such a way that we can understand it completely? Why is it logically true that this is the case?


Its a basic thing we learn as children and we start to ask questions, we know there is an explanation for everything thats why we ask questions to find out.

If there was not an explanation for everything, human kind would not be curious enough to seek the answers concerning the universe.

WE KNOW THERE MUST BE AN ANSWER.

But I respect your view that you dont think there is an explanation for everything and therefor there can not be an answer. I beg to differ.

Spinning a coin saves the headache, I wonder how many scientists in this field actually spun a coin? (Joke)

Regards
silkmesh
Just one more point

Current theories have been proved to be incorrect and a new theory becomes the new current theory.

Many current theories are questioned, most of Einstien's theories have been under attack. Scientist have tried to modify to suit their own theories.

By saying that many theories are error prone because of lack of evidential fact can not be a point of any form of argument against the reality of the statement.

Regards



Regards
Bikerman
silkmesh wrote:
Bikeman stated:

Quote:
I've not tried to prove anything. I merely pointed out that if you don't know the difference between scientific theory and spinning a coin then it might be an idea to learn before telling us what science is and how it works


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation


I full understand what theory means. a current theory does not mean thats its factual.
Did you read your own reference?
Quote:
Quote:
What rule says that there is an explanation for everything? Is it somehow obvious that the whole universe must be constructed in such a way that we can understand it completely? Why is it logically true that this is the case?


Its a basic thing we learn as children and we start to ask questions, we know there is an explanation for everything thats why we ask questions to find out.
Firstly this is what we call circular reasoning or a circular argument. How do we know that everything is explainable ? Because we know everything is explainable. Doesn't really work.....
Quote:
If there was not an explanation for everything, human kind would not be curious enough to seek the answers concerning the universe.
No, that doesn't really work either. Humans could be curious regardless of whether there is a knowable 'answer' to everything. Thats what we call a non sequeter.
Quote:

But I respect your view that you dont think there is an explanation for everything and therefor there can not be an answer. I beg to differ.
I never said anything of the sort. I asked you why you were confident that there must be an explanation for everything. I didn't say anything about my own position or reasoning at all.
Bikerman
silkmesh wrote:
Just one more point

Current theories have been proved to be incorrect and a new theory becomes the new current theory.
Give me some examples then....from any time over the last century or so....
Quote:


Many current theories are questioned, most of Einstien's theories have been under attack. Scientist have tried to modify to suit their own theories.
You still don't get it. Questioning a hypothesis is what actually makes it into a theory to start with. It is only a theory when it has been through peer review and been subjected to attempts to refute it. Every current theory has been questioned, not just many of them. They are continually questioned by later experiment and observation. That's one of the ways we know it is science.
Quote:

By saying that many theories are error prone because of lack of evidential fact can not be a point of any form of argument against the reality of the statement.
Firstly - a theory does not become error prone because of lack of evidence. A theory doesn't become a theory until it has already been tested Secondly I don't really know what you mean by error prone. Any theory will be pretty explicit about what observations would violate the theory - that is, again, a fundamental of science. Lastly I've read that sentence 12 times now and I still can't quite understand it...
silkmesh
Do your own research your find I am right. read the theories on the big bang thoroughly you will find attacks on Einstiens theries there and where current thinking changed.

The theory that the world was flat, the theory that planets went around the world etc, ect ect ect. And even that the world is round? yes it pear shaped. The theories on the surface of mar,s, the rings of saturn. Please please dont insult my inteligence.

I respect your opinion. Sick of the argument we differ badly on this issue. You are obvously stuck in your groove. I respect a man with conviction and you should be proud to have such conviction even if I think there wrong.

I dont actually care chris I have much more inportant things to do, I am certainly not going to argue any more on this issue as I have my convictions as well.

Thanks for your input. No coffee for one and pistols for two to day thanks I am keeping my cool.


Best Regards and wishes.
Bikerman
silkmesh wrote:
Do your own research your find I am right. read the theories on the big bang thoroughly you will find attacks on Einstiens theries there and where current thinking changed.
I know many of the theories reasonably...do you?
Quote:
Quote:
Give me some examples then....from any time over the last century or so....

The theory that the world was flat, the theory that planets went around the world etc, ect ect ect. And even that the world is round? yes it pear shaped. The theories on the surface of mar,s, the rings of saturn. Please please dont insult my inteligence.
I said the last century....non of those qualify since they are all much older than that. Want to try again ?
silkmesh
So no one this century is bashing einstien? Wow

Yes I have read many and accept they are theories but just that in my conception of theories. Lets see what happens in the next ten years at least one of those theories will be corrected as many have been added to a corrected with other theories

Ill have to give you the last word, your the theory expert.

The ball game is yours as I want to know or have explainations.

Maybe you can explain now to me in layman terms, (I am sure many members on this forum would also be very interested in the samethings)

1. Why did the big bang occur

2. How did something get created out of nothing

3. What was here before the big bang.

4. Why do we exist

If you can do just that because those are the sort of questions I am interested in being answered.

I of course have aired my theories of which can be found in my book. But I admit they are just theories and I have and open mind for the truth.

My problems on each question is:

a. There is complete space nothingness
b. You can not expect to create something out of nothingness


Best Regards
bongoman
Will the universe end?

probably

Will we be around to see it end?

probably not, what is more likely though is that the immediate solar system we are in, and the milky way galaxy will end sooner than the entire universe, but even that won't happen for a very very very long time. Then again we may be sooner that we think, I mean we don't know exactly how old this universe is, we can only estimate based on what we know so far we could be as close or as far as we may think from the universe ending. But then those sorts of predictions have been around since human civilization began, so we may as well enjoy things while we can.
HoboPelican
silkmesh wrote:

....

1. Why did the big bang occur

2. How did something get created out of nothing

3. What was here before the big bang.

4. Why do we exist

....


I think those questions, while interesting, lie outside the scope of THIS topic, Will (the) Universe Ever End.
rheanna
I really hope it does...got to have my cat first...
Tvis
Yeap, it will end. At some point in time the sun will just not have any energy anymore and will explode. This however will take another 15 billion years I thought. However I can be wrong with some zeros. It doesn't really matter, I won't be there to witness it. And probably in that period of time we will all move to another planet. They probably will figure out how to do that in millions of years. If wars did not end life on this planet any way. Or global warming, or many other things...So many things can happen before the sun goes down. And there is still plenty of time for us all to know what is best to do with our little planet. If we, for once, stop thinking about ourselves...
Jschoen43
ya it will end because everything ends. i dont think the universe was created from a big bang i think it was just full of gas then the gas exploded causing solids to form in it. if you think about it. it doesnt make sense. how could all this matter just suddenly explode from a tiny little spec
newolder
Jschoen43 wrote:
ya it will end because everything ends. i dont think the universe was created from a big bang i think it was just full of gas then the gas exploded causing solids to form in it. if you think about it. it doesnt make sense. how could all this matter just suddenly explode from a tiny little spec


>ya it will end because everything ends.

Such circular reasoning is best in a philosophy forum. It is an observation that the universe hasn't ended, yet.

>i dont think the universe was created from a big bang i think it was just full of gas then the gas exploded causing solids to form in it.

Best keep such thoughts to one's-self. They are << (very much less than) useless in a science forum without evidence.

>if you think about it.

Or work with the best available... (Google e.g.: Hawking, Penrose, Randall, Steinhardt, Turok, Witten et al)

>how could all this matter just suddenly explode from a tiny little spec (?)

Conservation of energy applies across the bulk universe

ed
Bikerman
newolder wrote:

Conservation of energy applies across the bulk universe
ed

Just a point, ed. Whilst I am in full agreement with the rest of the posting I have a query on this particular issue. I have come across several papers which seem to suggest that there is a finite lifetime for elementary particles. Granted the time in question is a very long time indeed (10e30 sticks in my mind). Could you comment on whether this is indeed sound theory and how it fits with general conservation law ?
rheanna
at this rate..I think soo...
newolder
Bikerman wrote:
newolder wrote:

Conservation of energy applies across the bulk universe
ed

Just a point, ed. Whilst I am in full agreement with the rest of the posting I have a query on this particular issue. I have come across several papers which seem to suggest that there is a finite lifetime for elementary particles. Granted the time in question is a very long time indeed (10e30 sticks in my mind). Could you comment on whether this is indeed sound theory and how it fits with general conservation law ?


The decay of hitherto stable matter to energy (e.g. electron or proton decay) lies outside the current "standard model" but, as Penrose notes, "There is the rest of eternity for the decay to happen so (he is) not too worried by the time scales involved...". The idea that an argument must invoke decays with longer half-lives than the time elapsed so far is more discomforting to the good prof...

Problems arise with the non-conservation of charge in current schemes for such decay (see reference posted earlier) but violations of C of E are not expected, as far as i read. (The consequences would be indeterminate, to say the least.)

ed.
fx-trading-education
For me the question "will the universe end?" is trickier than it appears.

Because "end" means that there is a time and time is part of the universe, it is not an abstract thing that is outside the universe as our mind could let us think.
Time is changing with the condition of the universe. That is also why it is probably impossible to reach the very beginning of the universe (even if we can get closer and closer) because at the "beginning" time didn't exist (I put it into hyphens because the word beginning is difficult to use when there is no time, even it's a bit too much for our brains to imagine that "no time" exists)

So in my opinion the word "end" as a meaning only inside this universe. So the "end of universe" doesn't have a meaning because it would mean that there is a time outside the universe and that we can "watch" the universe from outside starting and ending.
Bikerman
fx-trading-education wrote:
For me the question "will the universe end?" is trickier than it appears.

Because "end" means that there is a time and time is part of the universe, it is not an abstract thing that is outside the universe as our mind could let us think.
Time is changing with the condition of the universe. That is also why it is probably impossible to reach the very beginning of the universe (even if we can get closer and closer) because at the "beginning" time didn't exist (I put it into hyphens because the word beginning is difficult to use when there is no time, even it's a bit too much for our brains to imagine that "no time" exists)

So in my opinion the word "end" as a meaning only inside this universe. So the "end of universe" doesn't have a meaning because it would mean that there is a time outside the universe and that we can "watch" the universe from outside starting and ending.

I think you have the gist of it, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'Time is changing with the condition of the universe'. Time is relative (ie there is no 'absolute' time which we can all agree on and use to set our clocks, neither does time flow at the same rate for all observers - again it is relative). Time flow depends on relative velocity and acceleration (or gravity - the two are interchangeable here).
I agree that as we approach the Big Bang (t=0) then we reach a point beyond which it is not sensible to use words like 'before' or 'earlier' because if time did indeed commence at the instant of the BB then, by definition, there was no time before the big bang so no time elapsed and there was no space for time to pass......
fx-trading-education
Bikerman wrote:

I think you have the gist of it, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'Time is changing with the condition of the universe'. Time is relative (ie there is no 'absolute' time which we can all agree on and use to set our clocks, neither does time flow at the same rate for all observers - again it is relative). Time flow depends on relative velocity and acceleration (or gravity - the two are interchangeable here).
I agree that as we approach the Big Bang (t=0) then we reach a point beyond which it is not sensible to use words like 'before' or 'earlier' because if time did indeed commence at the instant of the BB then, by definition, there was no time before the big bang so no time elapsed and there was no space for time to pass......


English is not my native language so sometimes I don't use the correct wording. But I think that we agree on the matter. I meant that time is different depending on other conditions, so basically sae thing than what you said under "time is relative".
Bikerman
fx-trading-education wrote:
English is not my native language so sometimes I don't use the correct wording. But I think that we agree on the matter. I meant that time is different depending on other conditions, so basically sae thing than what you said under "time is relative".


Yep - that's the ticket. Have you looked at relativity theory? I can suggest some reasonably good links if interested (if you already know relativity, and for all I know you may be an expert, then feel free to tell me to stop being a patronising oik...better yet, you can teach me some more Smile
fx-trading-education
Bikerman wrote:


Yep - that's the ticket. Have you looked at relativity theory? I can suggest some reasonably good links if interested (if you already know relativity, and for all I know you may be an expert, then feel free to tell me to stop being a patronising oik...better yet, you can teach me some more Smile


I have read some interesting books written by astrophysicians that were related to the relativity theory but I am not an expert, so your links are welcome and they may be useful for many other people as well.
Bikerman
fx-trading-education wrote:
Bikerman wrote:


Yep - that's the ticket. Have you looked at relativity theory? I can suggest some reasonably good links if interested (if you already know relativity, and for all I know you may be an expert, then feel free to tell me to stop being a patronising oik...better yet, you can teach me some more Smile


I have read some interesting books written by astrophysicians that were related to the relativity theory but I am not an expert, so your links are welcome and they may be useful for many other people as well.


I've arranged them roughly in order of difficulty/technicality

Special Relativity
http://www.howstuffworks.com/relativity2.htm
http://web.wt.net/~cbenton/relativity.htm
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node133.html

An exercise on time dilation in Special Relativity

General Relativity
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GenRelativity.html
http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/notes/
Terrasis-Cian
Life may end... but the universe will always be there. It doesnt bare thinking about.. Sad
Mr_CEO
This is one of the most widely debated topics in science. On one extreme, you have creationists, who believe in the apocalypse, rapture, or other things of the sort. The other end (where I am located) believes mainly in one of two theories. There is the oscillating theory and the heat death theory (that's not the real name, but meh).
In the oscillating theory, the universe explodes (if you can say that). It expands until it reaches a critical point. At this critical point, the expansion in stopped by mass in the universe. It then begins to contract, until it reaches a nearly dimensionless clump of matter. It then "Bangs" outward and causes the cycle to start again.
The heat death theory is the same in the beginning, except the universe doesn't stop expanding. It continues expanding. Eventually, all matter in the universe is lead (too heavy to fuse). The temperature quickly drops to absolute zero. Black holes "dissolve", and there is no variation of energy in the universe. There may be energy, but it cannot be used for work.
That's a basic breakdown of all current theories. There is also the archaic steady-state theory, which matter is created at the center of the universe proportionate to the rate of expansion. This was disproved (strange things were found large distances away, stars redshifting & blueshifting away and towards us). As for what the universe is expanding into, no one really knows. One theory is that our universe is expanding into a multiverse. I can't explain it, so you might want to check wikipedia on that one. If you want information on the apocalypse or the rapture, go to church.
I can't believe he/she said that... what do you think?
newolder
Mr_CEO>In the oscillating theory, the universe explodes (if you can say that). It expands until it reaches a critical point. At this critical point, the expansion in stopped by mass in the universe. It then begins to contract, until it reaches a nearly dimensionless clump of matter. It then "Bangs" outward and causes the cycle to start again.

For any 21st-century cosmological model to have the remotest chance of being correct, it must account for the positive cosmological constant, λ, of General Relativity theory that was observed to exist in realty in 1998. None of these 20th-century-cyclic-tricks work with λ > 0.

Mr_CEO, it’s catch-up time for you, sir.

Roger Penrose, Lisa Randall, Edward Witten, Stephen Hawking (now he’s back in earthly realm) & edge.org will help bring you up to date.
Cheers for now, ed. Smile
stensen
Yoo people,
The univers is never ending cause its around as earth..

Lol, Well, this is what I truly belive.. Rolling Eyes (Its explaining alot)
poiko123
This question has intrigued me for some time. As, a Christian, I believe so. But scientifically, I don't think so. I think the outward explosion after the big bang created enough momentum so that celestial bodies will continue to expand.
Bikerman
poiko123 wrote:
This question has intrigued me for some time. As, a Christian, I believe so. But scientifically, I don't think so. I think the outward explosion after the big bang created enough momentum so that celestial bodies will continue to expand.

You are correct. Current thinking is, as you say, that the universe will continue to expand ad-infinitum and eventually become a cold dark 'soup' - the heat death...
newolder
Bikerman wrote:
poiko123 wrote:
This question has intrigued me for some time. As, a Christian, I believe so. But scientifically, I don't think so. I think the outward explosion after the big bang created enough momentum so that celestial bodies will continue to expand.

You are correct. Current thinking is, as you say, that the universe will continue to expand ad-infinitum and eventually become a cold dark 'soup' - the heat death...


Current (1998+) observation is that the universe's rate of expansion is increasing with time - and has been since t=0. Any 'current thinking' that doesn't account for this is, well, rubbish. Smile

i'll go dig-out a graph though this PowerPointPresentation may help :: http://www.eso.org/~bleibund/talks/Balaton_1_pub.ppt (takes a while to download) and there's this on the cosmological constant :: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101accel.html

Happy Sunday.
WingState
I wonder where heaven is Sad
Indi
WingState wrote:
I wonder where heaven is Sad

Heaven is in the Snooty Fox pub on King most Fridays between 7 and 10PM at the table in the corner closest to the stairs. Look for the red hair. Her name is Anna.

Seriously, what does that question have to do with the topic? If you think of heaven as an actual place, and that place is within the universe, it will be destroyed with the rest of the universe when the universe dies. Otherwise, who knows?
Related topics
Her and the Other
Smallville
Photoshop/Gimp contest: Bondings' FACE!!
Will Jesus Return ? WHEN / HOW ...
how much caffeine do you consume daily? (on average)
AMD VS. Intel
Vegetarianism
Give me a HOLLA if you are a fervent agnostic!
Is Jesus Perfect?
Should they abolish prison rape?
9/11: Five years on
Is The Universe Finite?
Nuclear Peace !
What will happen after we die? Afterlife?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.