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

Skip to comments.

My Take on The Big Bang

Posted on 09/05/2003 9:24:29 PM PDT by russianteen

I know that this is a commonly debated topic, and we all know what the truth is *wink wink*, but I feel like ranting about it anyway. We have all heard about the big bang, but i'd like to explain it all anyway. According to that theory, all matter was condensed into one point, and that was the universe. There was nothing outside it. The one point in the universe was everything, and one day it exploded. That, along with the rest of the theory, seems seriously flawed.

For an explosion to happen, one or more forces have to act upon another group of forces. According to the big bang theory, there were no outside forces, or anything else outside the universe. There was no outside. Yet there was a big boom that eventually led to the creation of planets, stars, and of course us. hmm...nothing wrong with the theory yet?

One thing that I have thought about is if there was a big bang from one central point, if all matter wasn't incinerated from the start, it would all fly in a different direction from a single starting point. All chunks created by the explosion, however big or small, would go outward in its own way a nothing would come into contact with anything else. This would make galaxies or any clusters of spacial objects impossible to prove.

I'm going into my freshman year in high school in a few days and i don't think my opinion will be popular with most of my peers and teachers. sigh...damn liberals...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: musings; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last
To: russianteen
'Ping' is an alert, and I was alerting the Freeper 'Physicist' to come over to this thread to give you his take on the matter.
21 posted on 09/05/2003 9:58:51 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
oh ok... lol this is only my third article so im new to all these terms... any others i should know?
22 posted on 09/05/2003 10:01:01 PM PDT by russianteen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: russianteen
Read Issac Asimov's "The Last Question."
23 posted on 09/05/2003 10:03:07 PM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: russianteen
Hi :)
When I consider the "big Bang" I have to wonder where the "condensed matter' which banged, came from. I beleive in the big bang, only it has not happened yet. Just throwing in my 2 cents worth.
24 posted on 09/05/2003 10:05:50 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned) (http://www.designeduniverse.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: russianteen
The lingo around here is pretty extensive, but you'll get the hang of it quickly. If you don't know, just ask. Welcome aboard.
25 posted on 09/05/2003 10:05:59 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: russianteen
Here's a link that may interest you:

A Brief History of the Universe

26 posted on 09/05/2003 10:17:36 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: russianteen
Well, my degree is in astrophysics, so I'll give you a few comments here;

For an explosion to happen, one or more forces have to act upon another group of forces.

The Big Bang was not an explosion, instead it marked the beginning of the expansion of the universe. This may be a subtle, though important distinction. To explode there must be something to explode into.

So, as the universe has expanded, things get farther from each other, and to a casual observer from any spot in the universe, on the largest scale it would appear as if there was an explosion centered on where they are observing from.

Think of the universe as a piece of raisin bread. You put it in the oven and the dough starts to expand. The distance between each raisin increases because the dough between them has expanded. In this analogy, the dough is the fabric of space and the raisins are galaxies (well actually groups of galaxies).

In all seriousness, there has been a movement to rename the Big Bang theory because it causes just this confusion.

if all matter wasn't incinerated from the start

Well, it was actually, or at least pretty darn close. The 'matter' extent pre-Big Bang we have no idea about. The stuff shortly after was extremely exotic, and can only be recreated in particle accelerators now, if at all.

As time went on most of the particles settled into matter and anti-matter hydrogen atoms which obliterated each other until only the tiniest fraction of atoms remained, with matter oh so slightly more common then anti-matter and hence virtually none of the latter still exists.

While the Big Bang theory isn't perfect, it does fit what we have observed fairly well. It is also accepted by most everyone in the field by they conservative or liberal, theist or atheist. Big Bang theory is not some politically correct concoction.

If you really are interested, I'd suggest you ask your freshman science teacher, or your local librarian, for more you can read about on your own.
27 posted on 09/05/2003 10:24:07 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nac Mac Feegle; Admin Moderator
Give the KID a break will ya!
28 posted on 09/05/2003 10:25:10 PM PDT by Lion in Winter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Check my link
29 posted on 09/05/2003 10:25:26 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
As time went on most of the particles settled into matter and anti-matter hydrogen atoms which obliterated each other until only the tiniest fraction of atoms remained, with matter oh so slightly more common then anti-matter and hence virtually none of the latter still exists.

CP violation. :-)

30 posted on 09/05/2003 10:28:59 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: russianteen
This is something I bookmarked a while ago... don't know if there's a newer version: The Lexicon of FreeRepublic
31 posted on 09/05/2003 10:42:46 PM PDT by mwyounce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Bad universe...no cookies for you! ;)
32 posted on 09/05/2003 11:08:10 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: russianteen
You are wrong about everything.

However you may be forgiven because all teenagers believe they know everything.

There are so many errors and misapprehensions in your brief 'rant' that it is difficult to know where to begin. As Wolfgang Pauli used to say, "it is not even wrong," i.e., it does not even merit being called 'wrong'.

For example:

"One thing that I have thought about is if there was a big bang from one central point, if all matter wasn't incinerated from the start, it would all fly in a different direction from a single starting point. All chunks created by the explosion, however big or small, would go outward in its own way a nothing would come into contact with anything else. This would make galaxies or any clusters of spacial objects impossible to prove."

There was NO matter at the start; only radiation. So 'incinerated' is pretty apt. So, by the way, is "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" Steven Weinberg's book, The First Three Minutes describes a universe made of nothing but radiation--but with densities much greater than granite. No matter could exist. It took thousands of years (millions?) for things to cool sufficiently that atoms could form.

Another error: there was no explosion from a point. The explosion is still going on! Space began expanding.

It is clear that the Universe rapidly reached thermal equilibrium (go take a thermodynamics class) and this has caused problems because there was not time for regions distant from one another to communicate at the light-speed limit. However, a concept called 'inflation' solved that problem; it is possible for spacetime to expand faster than light! This has the effect of nicely homogenizing the early universe, leading to the smooth (but not too smooth) early universe we observe in this epoch.

Do us a favor: get thru college and Astronomy 101 before you give us your take on the nature of It All.

If you want, Radio Astronomer and/or I can give you a reading list.

--Boris

33 posted on 09/05/2003 11:08:10 PM PDT by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: russianteen
I believe in the "Big-Bang-Theory", God spoke "IT" into existence, BANG it happened. . end of story

Sorry to pop your 'big' ideas... LOL

34 posted on 09/05/2003 11:13:12 PM PDT by Phyto Chems
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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: Lion in Winter
I was just as inquisitive when I was his age ;) give him all we have and stretch his mind.
36 posted on 09/05/2003 11:22:01 PM PDT by pianomikey (piano for prez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AZLiberty
>>Quantum physics says that, roughly speaking, matter can be created out of "nothing", with some small probability.<<

Oh Dear GOD, I may not have been the only person to read Schroedinger's Cat and Six Easy Pieces. Thank you for reminding me that I'm not out of touch ;)
37 posted on 09/05/2003 11:24:58 PM PDT by pianomikey (piano for prez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: russianteen
SPOTREP - Comment in the morning
38 posted on 09/05/2003 11:25:37 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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]

To: russianteen
You can't understand relatavistic physics with newtonian concepts. Your thinking on this subject is seriously naive.

We only call it a "bang" from our present perspective. In reality there was no bang. There was no explosion. There was nothing to observe and no observer. Even if there had been an observer, a God, if you like, even to him it would not have seemed a bang or an expolsion, only a coming into being.

Do some serious reading before you mouth off in class. That's my "old man's" suggestion.
40 posted on 09/06/2003 1:42:58 AM PDT by John Valentine (In Seoul, and keeping one eye on the hills to the North...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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