What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The big bang!

Here's an explanation of the Big Bang i read recently. I thought it was pretty good so maybe someone that doesn't understand it will understand this:

Why is there a universe at all? How could everything we see around us have been created out of nothing?
When you begin to think about how the universe began, you naturally wonder what was here before it began. The obvious answer is "nothing". But what, exactly, is "nothing"? The best way to characterize current thinking on this question is to say that "nothing" just ain't what it used to be. For most of recorded history, people have had a problem thinking about nothingness, or the vacuum - indeed, recognition of the very existence of such a state is fairly recent. The reason for this difficulty isn't hard to find. Have you ever tried to picture nothing? I can't do it. I can picture empty space surrounding something (two basketballs, for example), but i can't picture the absence of everything. And this shortcoming of human imagination has influenced our thoughts about nature - scientists accepted the existence of the vacuum only when the results of repeated experiments drove them to do so.
But that acceptance didn't last long. With the advent of quantum mechanis, our picture of nothing changed again. Instead of a passive, inert absense of matter, quantum theory tells you that a vacuum is both active and dynamic. According to the laws of quantum mechanis a bit of matter can appear spontaneously ouf of nothing, provided that (1) a corresponding bit of antimatter appears at the same time and that (2) the matter and antimatter come together and annihilate each other (disappear back into the vacuum) in a time so short that their presence cannot be directly measured. This process is called the creation of a "virtual" pair of particles, one of matter and one of antimatter.
Think of the vacuum as a level field and the creation of a virtual pair as like digging a hole and piling the dirt up. Then you have a particle (the pile of dirt) and an antiparticle (the hole), but when you put all the dirt back in the hole, you're back to the level fied again.
So the modern vacuum is a little like popcorn popping, except that this popcorn can "unpop" as well. A virtual pair pops up here and unpops, then another pops up there, and so on. And lest you think this is all a fairy tale, I should point out that occasionally a particle traveling through space, such as an electron, comes near one of these virtual pairs and is very subtly altereds by the encounter.That subtle alteration can be detected, so the concept of the quantum mechanical vacuum is backed up by more than just imagination!.
So the "nothing" from which the universe sprang was not just the absense of everything but a nothing with virtual pairs of very energetic particles popping up and disappearing all over the place. .. Let me talk about my favorite type of theory to give you a sense of how these theories operate.
Think of the fabric of space as being something like the membrane of a very special kind of ballon. The presence of any matter, even virtual pairs of particles, causes the fabris to bulge, and this drains energy from the gravitation field to make matter. If the bending is severe enough the ballon starts to expand. In this scheme, if the virtual pairs pop for a long enough time, eventually enough of them will pop in the same place at the same time to bend the fabric enough to start the expansion going. This is the event we usually refer to as the Big Bang.

There it is. I hope some people are more clear on the subject. All i ask is that the people that belive in (i'll say alternative) explanations for the creation of the universe, to not post them here since i'd like the discussion purely based on scientific theory.
 
This along the same lines as what a posted a while ago, how everything has something of a duality. I said that resistance creates waves and time. The vacuum of space is not a nothingness, because there is some form of matter/energy there. If there wasn't, light would not travel at the speed it does, and might be almost instantaneous.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]eventually enough of them will pop in the same place at the same time to bend the fabric enough to start the expansion going. This is the event we usually refer to as the Big Bang.

This explanation seems to be dependent on the presence of space ("place") and time, which, I believe, were formed by the big bang and did not preceed it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Since time (space-time) emerged out of the big bang, supposedly there was no "before the universe began" either...
 
This has actually been a prevalent theory for a little while now....at least since I've been out of college (10 years). You can actually see matter getting created at the event horizon of a black hole (it's measurable) because the two opposite particle some appear on either side of the even horizon. When this occurs, they are ripped away from each other too quickly for them to interact enough to re-disapear (re-disapear? where did I come up with that word?).

To address the last two posts, I think this is part of what the article calls the limmitation of the human imagination to conceive of true "nothing."
 
Because there isn't a true nothing in space, just like if you die, there isn't a true nothing left. Think how horrible it would be to not exist when you die
confused.gif
.
 
Was it horrible to not exist before you were born?

Capslock
 
Hey, didn't I see this on Star Trek?
 
Of course it wasn't horrible not to exist, as you can't have an opinion of your non-existance
smile.gif
. You have no thoughts, and are nothing. Atleast, that's the eatheist view. I personally believe in reincarnation though, so I'm sure I've existed in some form for quite some time.
 
  • #11
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Capslock @ Oct. 18 2005,11:14)]Was it horrible to not exist before you were born?
I hated it. Things are much better with me around.

This explanation isn't as flashy as the more detailed cosmologies you can find, but it is general enough that pretty much everything in it is true. I'm not sure if virtual pairs is a truly analagous behavior to the big bang, though. At the very least, this is a good introduction to virtual particles.
There is the cosmology from string theory that describes the big bang as the collision and intersection of two or more "universes" of greater dimension than ours. I believe the analogy was drawn with two-dimensional shadows being flat projections of three-dimensional objects.  The abundance and concentration of matter (as opposed to antimatter) is then related to the configurations of the intersecting figures, the way that a red light and a green light produce yellow light when their projections intersect on a white surface. By my understanding, it's not actually definite if these intersecting objects behave much like universes or if they are things of a different nature entirely, but their existance is somehow a consequence of string theory's interpretation of observed fact.
This theory doesn't seem to address the apparent abundance of matter in our universe. Last I read, the physics community was fairly confident that the universe had a significant absence of stable antimatter. So I'm a little puzzled by the sudden conclusion that virtual pairs somehow managed to bend the universe into shape without unbending it a moment later. It just doesn't fit. A lot of energy exists as matter today, and the more energy borrowed to create a virtual pair, the sooner the pair annihilates. Maybe somebody in the physics community could elaborate on this and explain it to me, because I'm just a hobbyist for now.
I also don't like the way they turn the void into such a big deal. They certainly didn't do their research on it - the idea of zero has been present in mathematics for well over a thousand years and with it the philosophical implications of non-quantity, and the concept of void has been central to Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism dating back even longer. But I'm critical of everything.
~Joe
 
  • #12
i think its also called the "m" theory? it explains about that there is a big bang but a different way than they taught us in school. also expalins that there may be other dimentions very close but that we cant touch and see them sorta like a parrallel world. how many dementions is there suppose to be for this to be true was it 11 or 12 dementions? we live in the 3rd demention, one demention for time, 2nd for movent on a plane( i think) and the 3rd for free to move about(not quite sure but something like that)
 
  • #13
I wish schools would teach less big bang and more spelling.  Unless when you write demention you mean, "The universe in which a person's hallucinations or grossly deluded perceptions can be said to truly be taking place; an alternate reality."  (definition quoted from
http://www.langmaker.com/)  That's something very different from dimension.  When a physicist refers to lots of dimensions, they aren't an alternate reality.  They are reality.
 
  • #14
Man, do you ever see good spelling on the internet
mad.gif
(but not that angry. Not enough emoticons
smile_n_32.gif
)
 
  • #16
Not a problem, but all our budding young scientists need to focus more on spelling because accurate spelling is far more important when tossing around more esoteric words and names.
 
  • #17
[b said:
Quote[/b] (fc3srx713b @ Oct. 18 2005,7:05)]how many dementions is there suppose to be for this to be true was it 11 or 12 dementions?
M-theory describes a system of 11 dimensions. There are three for movement through space (up/down, left/right, forward/backward,) one for movement through time, six hidden, circular dimensions, and an 11th "manifold" dimension that is difficult for me to describe.
The six circular dimensions are circles that are so small, there is no way for things the size of humans to observe them directly. They are so small, I believe, that movement across them cannot be described in a classical sense - they are shorter than the shortest measurable distance. The reason they are small and circular is because the heavier types of particles, such as protons and electrons, are wrapped entirely around the hidden dimensions. If the circular dimensions were any bigger than they are, then all the particles that make up solid matter in the universe would have to stretch to fit and it would take a greater amount of energy to maintain their size, the way an inflated balloon has higher air pressure inside.
The reason space and time are big and seemingly limitless is because there is a certain chance that a particle wrapped around the dimension will break, letting the dimension unfurl into a larger size. The big bang indicates where time, the first dimension to unwind, broke loose, and the spatial dimensions followed. M-theory doesn't say that the big bang was different than our conception of it - it just gives an alternate explanation of why things happened. The way our universe is set up, the chances just so happen that four of the dimensions are likely to have come undone by now; the other six are still tied up by the heavy particles. Things like photons, and the particles which transmit gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces, are never wrapped around any dimensions, and that's what makes them so much lighter - heavy particles gain a lot of energy just from being stretched around the tiny hidden dimensions, while light particles aren't stretched at all and can be as small as they want.
The last dimension was described to me as a kind of surface which every particle moves around on, but particles don't interact with each other in an intuitive manner along this dimension. I was given a very poor treatment of it because the details of M-theory, which proposed the manifold dimension, weren't quite ironed out when the materials I was working from were published. Of course, people are drifting away from M-theory now - I'm not very up to date on the hip new physical theories.
~Joe
 
  • #18
11 huh? I have believed for quite a while that there are something like 12 spiritual dimensisons, somehow corresponding to the physical dimensions. Think... of the earth and its atmoshperic layers, like the statosphere, etc. Aside from those there are also the magnet/electomagnetic layers around the earth sphere, like the ionosphere.
 
  • #19
Notice how easily we can understand when Seedjar writes,

"The reason they are small and circular is because the heavier types of particles, such as protons and electrons, are wrapped entirely around the hidden dimensions. If the circular dimensions were any bigger than they are, then all the particles that make up solid matter in the universe would have to stretch to fit and it would take a greater amount of energy to maintain their size, the way an inflated balloon has higher air pressure inside."

Imagine if he had mistakenly written demention instead of dimension.  We wouldn't know what the h*ll he was talking about.  Ah, yes, the benefit of careful spelling.  It makes everything so easy to understand.
 
Back
Top