Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: At _War_With_Liberals
actually im 14 lol. also, about what some other people said. 1-this is ONE view on the big bang. Some are even more absurd. On TechTV one theroretical physicist actually said that when there is absolutely nothing, some sort of explosive bubbles appear, and eventually cluster up and explode. I'm dead serious. Also, im new to FR so please explain what a bump is... :)
8 posted on 09/05/2003 9:34:28 PM PDT by russianteen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: russianteen
im new to FR so please explain what a bump is...

It's what ya get on your head for posting vanities.Just kidding!!!!! Just kidding!!!!

My questions for the big bang theory: Who made what blew up, and who made it blow up? ;-)

Hb

10 posted on 09/05/2003 9:39:22 PM PDT by Hoverbug (whadda ya mean, "we don't get parachutes"!?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: russianteen
there are also beliefs (BELIEFS!) that the "Big Bang" is a cycle: that is, the universe expands out, but since space is slightly negatively curved, it continues contracting into a "big crunch" as Hawking likes to call it. When it reaches it's smallest point it simply folds over itself and starts expanding again in the "big bang" fashion you're familiar with.

and that's just one of their crackpot theories.
11 posted on 09/05/2003 9:41:26 PM PDT by pianomikey (piano for prez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: russianteen
when there is absolutely nothing, some sort of explosive bubbles appear, and eventually cluster up and explode.

There is evidence for this, and other related theories. Quantum physics says that, roughly speaking, matter can be created out of "nothing", with some small probability. Every once in a while, the nothingness of space-time will simultaneously generate a particle and its corresponding antiparticle. Usually, the two particles recombine to annihilate each other, but under certain circumstances they won't. For example, if the particles happen to appear at the event horizon of a black hole, one may get sucked into the black hole while the other is ejected.

Since individual particles are formed all the time due to quantum mechanics, occasionally multiple particles will be formed at the same location. The probability is very small, but space-time has been around forever, so it has happened a lot. With very, very small probability, quantum mechanics says that a whole universe can pop right up out of space-time. Again, since space-time has been around forever, the probability that it would happen eventually is basically 1.0. Well, it did happen, and here we are.

There are some interesting problems with the Big Bang theory, even among physicists. The most striking is similar to the one you mention. You wondered why everything didn't just fly off in all directions without ever forming larger particles, much less galaxies. I think the explanation for your problem is that early on in the universe's history -- way before one-trillionth of a second -- the material of the universe was dense enough that it formed large clumps that persisted after inflation, and turned into stars, galaxies, and galactic clusters.

The other problem that physicists wonder about is why the universe is actually so homogeneous. Why is it that whatever direction you look in the universe, it's actually pretty much the same? In principle, any minor variations during the early formation of the universe should have persisted, so there should be something like cracks or discontinuities in the patterns of galaxies. But there aren't.

Joao Magueijo -- in a book called "Faster Than the Speed of Light" -- has a new, post-Einsteinian, post-inflation theory of the cosmos that explains this strange homogeneity. Basically it posits that during the first sub-trillionth of a second of the universe, the speed of light was faster than it is now. This enabled energy to be shared and equalized across the entire universe simultaneously, producing the subsequent homogeneity. There's no experimental proof for this theory (comparable, say, to Einstein's prediction that the mass of the sun would bend starlight), but it hasn't been disproved yet, either.

35 posted on 09/05/2003 11:20:19 PM PDT by AZLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: russianteen
I don't take science reported in the media too seriously.
39 posted on 09/06/2003 12:14:13 AM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals (If you mention Clinton, please use the syntax: Clinton (an accessory to 9-11))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson