The Big Bang Theory

[palestranger 0]

pedro you're doubleposting... I am no moderator but i suggest you edit your first post here and put the pic in it, and then delete your last one. Just to keep you out of trouble:d<!-- edit -->I'm too tired to comment on your post right now but i saw in my mailbox that you replied on this topic... It is interesting to read tho... I don't want to offend you or anything.Cheers, i'm off to bed.Message to mods & admins => i know this post ain't a good post (i think) so don't count it if you don't want to...<!-- end edit-->

Edited November 4, 2004 by palestranger (see edit history)

[lhunath 0]

or is "space" as we know it (a big infinite box) actually increasing in size.  The idea of an infinite box of space just seems an impossibilty to me... I mean it might be bigger than anyone could ever hope to imagine, but there Must be some sort of limit on the shape of space itself...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's where you've got it wrong. You have got to let go of the idea that things are final. You'll need some abstract thinking for this, becaus in everyday life we don't witness infinity. But in space, the only one thing that can be infinite in distance, is emptyness, because that way there is no breach of laws of nature, and that way there is a finite amount of energy & matter.

Now, you have to imagine, space. Nothing in it, no light, no heat, no energy, no objects, no matter, nothing. Wherever you go. And because this is all empty, it's infinite in it's three dimentions. Because after a certain point, there will always be another point. Imagine it in coordinates. They have no limit at how far they can go, they just keep on getting bigger and bigger the further you fly, but just like numbers, they are infinite in length. In that nothingness, on a specific point, there is some matter. That matter exploded out of a singularity, meaning it's moving away from each other, because of the kinetic energy spun forward by the explosion. Light, heat, rays, whatever, it all flies in all directions. Filling emptyness.

However, filling is such an odd word, because something infinite in depth cannot be filled. Energy and matter would be spreading forever, if there are no other forces active causing the accelleration to at a certain point drop below 0, but anyway; the point is, there are no limits to distance. Just like there are no limits to how far you can count.

 

 

And, pedro, please don't double post, I don't want to hit your warning meter again.

[avalon1405241471 0]

Can anyone show me a good site with photographs on this topic?I would like to know more in details.Science always fascinate me.I love science and technology!Thanks!

[avalon1405241471 0]

Sydney,I feel they same way as you do but what make me wanted to know more is the mystery behind it.I dun see it as a wrong or right thing but a knowledge to be gain.It is interesting to see how people react to it and why, especially for topics like this. Human mind is as complicated as the Universe we are living in.Who knows how many universes are out there.We, ourselves are universes living with in universes.There will be no ending to topics like this but it keeps the mind actively working and that to me a plus point.

[lhunath 0]

What's funny is if knowing that you can't know anything for sure.Is this world real? Or are we all computers that are fed information, attached to a central mainframe, and if so, is that central mainframe real? Or is that as well a creation of an inteligent specie.The universe is unlimited in size, does that mean that there could be an unlimited amount of galaxies like ours? Or is there only one per dimention? How many dimentions are there? Are we really only 3D? Or are we at the same time moving in other dimentions as well leading other lives?Has anybody seen a hypercube, btw? A 4D object, much like a cube.dot => line => squarre => cube => hypercubeVery nice to see a 4D object, though you need to see it in 3D to be able to understand it, not 2D (on your screen). Because then it doesn't make sense. (Just like a 3D object as a 1D line doesn't make sense, but as a 2D perspective drawing it does).

[d-and-d 0]

Lots of questions in here. Regarding the big bang theory, it has the same problems as religion - you can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. Background radiation supports the idea, but it's not the only possible source of background radiation.Time Travel - wonderful topic - one of my favourites in fact. Again it's not really possible to say whether it is or isn't possible without trying to do it. I'm not technical enough to say so I will remain in blissful ignorance!

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

According to my physicist friends, time travel only sorta works. Basically, you could travel back and forth in time, but could not go before the creation of the first time machine. so, all the stuff in the past till the time of the first time machine is off limits.As for religion and science not mixing, that isn't necessarily true(though its hard).The key is to take religion as not a set of things that are true, but a series of stories and ideas that will help us handle the complexity of life, and allow us to hopefully lead fuller more successfull and happier lives.Religion should not be a 'belief system', but a system of practice to become a better specimen of the human species. That is why I am a buddhist. But thats just my opinion.

[hashbang 0]

As for religion and science not mixing, that isn't necessarily true(though its hard).

The key is to take religion as not a set of things that are true, but a series of stories and ideas that will help us handle the complexity of life, and allow us to hopefully lead fuller more successfull and happier lives.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Has anyone considered the connection between quantum physics and religion. If not or if interested, there's a couple of good reads ... one is Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything and the other is the fictional work, Angels and Demons by Dan Brown (the same one who wrote the daVince Code).

 

Basically quantum physics gets to the point of almost requiring faith. Our technology is not advanced enough to fully understand the composition of matter/energy.

 

cheers

hashbang

[shaldengeki1405241473 0]

Modern-day physics and religion are similar in that they both require massive amounts of faith for little to no actual proof. I mean, look at string theory at the moment. Less than a century ago, people would have laughed in your face if you even suggested that giant strings could exist in space-time and alter the very fabric of reality. And that's not much time, if you think about it.

[Amorak 0]

I have not studyed a lot about the big bang but from what I have learned its seams the universe is a piece of elastic stuck in a loophole. The universe is expanding constantly until it reaches it limmit and then colapses in on its self and creates another big bang and so the whole process starts up again, the niverse expands then colapses...

 

As for time travel. It is probable to travel back in time, if you can go faster than the speed of light in a circle you should arive back where you started before you left, really I'd have to say this is not time travel you are simply going back to where you started before the light has had a chance to do anything (you are not seeing your self but just the light you eft behind). And before anyone says it, how can you prove nothing can travel faster than light if we havend descoverd everything yet?

 

Going forward in time is a totaly different matter, It could be posable to go forward in time if everyones fate was set, that would mean that everything we do was going to happen (which I dont like) the only other way totravel forward in time would be to get a copy of everything as in get everything, everyones thoughts, everyones movements, the wind, snow, water, everything and put it on to a computer program. You could then predict what might happen but you wouldnt really be going into the future.

 

As for religion, well maby sience and religion mix quite well, like a married couple they have there argument but they can come out with backing each other up. For example God from the bible was suposed to create Earth in 7 days or there abouts well some sientists beleave that it might just be posable that the world was created in a week or two and suported life, not a extravagent as what the bible says since it was still a lump of boiling rock after a few weeks but maby God likes to boast a little.

 

But the bible does have its lies and its murders mainly from the new testiment which has forced me not to beleave everything it says, I'm a buddhist so not that it matters, but I still read and beleave most of what happened in the first five books, although I dont atualy beleave in a phisical God, more that god is everything.

[OpaQue 15]

Here is an Interesting thing to ponder.....

Okay.. Mass and Energy are the same thing.... (Fact)

When Energy Converts to Mass..  an equal quantity of Mass and Anti-Mass are created...

in other words you CANNOT make a Proton, without also making an anti-Proton.

..........

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dont know if anyone has replied for the above post.. but Dude.. I dont get what you are saying!

 

MATTER <-> ANTI-MATTER stuff

 

If Proton -> Matter then Electron-> Anti-Matter

 

so whatever exists in universe, has proton and ELECTON

so the equation gets balanced there itself.. so whats the deal about the whole new galaxy or another univirse regarding the anti-matter stuff..

 

Lets assume it is present.. then that would again be like a conflict or something. Because matter and antimatter are always bounded and close to each other. So you cannot say necesarily that SOMEWHERE that thing might be present. because if it were , we could have known it.

 

My own explanation for the big bang theory ::

I feel it is *BLEEP*! Humans are very much technologically behind .. So thinking about a crap like that is simply a waste of time.

We are talking about the EXISTENCE of this universe. When we talk Existance of CONTINENTS, we dont talk about the Forms they were before.. We dont talk about the fact that there was a huge land mass packed to gether which seperated due to some reason ( I dont remember that thing related to the Earths internal waves )

Formation of continents takes us back to the formation of landmass...

 

Similarly, when talking about formation of the Universe, we must talk how it was formed rather than what it was before. So, Question is how the whole thing came into existense ?? For which no one has an answer ...

 

Another THEORY!

IT is said that Einstein used to tthink in the post dimensions.. i.e. more than 3 dimensions which is impossible for us to perceive. According to this extract from an article, The theory of 4th dimension might be clear.

HyperspaceHere we go with the extra dimensions again. "How can space curve?," you might ask. Well, imagine the surface of a sphere (a ball-shaped object). The surface itself is two-dimensional (flat and thin like a piece of paper with two possible directions to go, horizontal and vertical), right? But it's curved around a three-dimensional space, the shape of the sphere. The same thing happens with three-dimensional space, only it curves into a higher-dimensional hyperspace. This hyperspace contains extra dimensions of space (specifically, six), not to be confused with the time dimension of space-time. Of course, we can't see the extra dimensions. Imagine two dimensional creatures living on the surface of the sphere. They go about, doing their daily business, totally unaware that their world is bent into the third dimension, but even if they knew, they couldn't see it. All they see are flat shapes and lines, just like all we see are flat images. Of course, the different images from our two eyes give our brains a sense of depth, but our field of vision is two-dimensional, like a movie screen.http://library.thinkquest.org/17508/TXGeneralrelativity.html

I feel that the Existence of universe involves these dimensions and hence it would be quite stupid for us to prove that Universe came into existence with such stupid theories as they speak about only those dimensions which are interpreted by our brains.. In simple words, We are only Humans, and not Super humans!

 

I would really like to request you to read this article here.. https://gitso-outage.oracle.com/thinkquest

 

After reading that, no wonder Einstein was a great man. It was quite obvious that he did use like 26% of his brain. ( I dont know how far this rumur is true ).

 

The existence of the next Dimension itself is very facinating itself. The article suggests it to be the CO-ORDINATE of TIME. Well, I can use it to very well explain most of the unsolved mysteries of the earth like the Bermuda triangle...( Wow! I got to start a topic regarding this ..)

 

But considering most of the tools and theories that man has in hand to prove these complicated stuff, it seems we are far behind. We havent discovered the total no. of waves that are exisiting around us. For Eg. Considering the general types of waves emited by atomic particles, we have alpha, beta & gamma rays. Of which , Gamma can be called waves because it is completely a form of energy. and there is no matter involved in it as such. Then you might also be intrested in the sub-nucleonic particles like Mesons and glueons. ( I hope I am right with the spellings ). But they are the building blocks or protons and neutrons. Humans are not yet successful in finding the Waves emited by these Particles. Also there are hundreds of undiscovered unknown radiations and unknown waves that surround us. The size of the Accelerators used to study them are still limited.. Humans might get a huge break through when we discover these new waves.. Nothing can be said much till then..

 

- OpaQue

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

I'm a buddhist so not that it matters, but I still read and beleave most of what happened in the first five books, although I dont atualy beleave in a phisical God, more that god is everything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK.....what sort of buddhist are you? The events and descriptions of things that occur in the first 5 books, (in particular things like genesis) conflict pretty directly with the pali cannon. Which is fine, but perhaps you should consider your beliefs on both these religions more carefully.

 

 

On another note, someone mentioned that if you were going faster than light and came around in a circle or something like that you would have gone backwards in time. Not really, thats not how it works. If that is even possible(which it looks like it isn't, at least not as described) what would happen is the person doing the orbit would age backwards and arrive younger than they were when they left. Everyone else would have aged.

[Amorak 0]

someone mentioned that if you were going faster than light and came around in a circle or something like that you would have gone backwards in time. Not really, thats not how it works. If that is even possible(which it looks like it isn't, at least not as described) what would happen is the person doing the orbit would age backwards and arrive younger than they were when they left. Everyone else would have aged.

Ye, thatâs what I said. Its technically not travelling back in time since time has nothing to do with time. You also would not be any younger and no one else would be older again because again time has nothing to do with it.
Say you did a complete orbit of the earth going faster than the speed of light, If you are going fast enough you would see your self before you started, this is not time travel its simply to do with speeds and light, because all you will see is the light off of you before you started but you are not there.

Atual time travel is improbable and will allways be improbable since we dont atualy know much about time, we just say from now --------- to now is a second, we made it up.

OK.....what sort of buddhist are you? The events and descriptions of things that occur in the first 5 books, (in particular things like genesis) conflict pretty directly with the pali cannon. Which is fine, but perhaps you should consider your beliefs on both these religions more carefully.

Zen, Or at least I try to follow it as much as I can in my life. As for the books of the Old Testament they donât conflict with me atall infact I donât know how they can conflict with anything but I do look at things differently. The books to me are just about people and how people can preform good and evil acts or miricals and hatred. I take god in the books as what they believed in but because I read and believe there storyâs does not mean I have to also believe in there god and there beliefs.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Well, the way you wrote your post led me to believe that you took those books literally rather than a description of the times or a set of morality tales.

Modern-day physics and religion are similar in that they both require massive amounts of faith for little to no actual proof. I mean, look at string theory at the moment. Less than a century ago, people would have laughed in your face if you even suggested that giant strings could exist in space-time and alter the very fabric of reality. And that's not much time, if you think about it.

Not quite. Modern physics does indeed have lots of theories, but these are not meant to be taken as fact. They exist to be tested, Science rests on positing theories that explain the data that has been gathered, and then attempting to show that the theory is false. thus, nothing(well, almost nothing) is ever proven to be true, but instead proven to not be false(so far). The important thing here is that in order for a theory to be scientific, it MUST be disprovable. In order to be disprovable it must be a proscriptive as well as descriptive theory. As in, it most predict what will happen in the future, not just what has happened in the past. Then, when the future comes around, we can tell if the theory was correct(so far). This is a methodology, which does not require faith. You can wait around and see, for yourself, whether or not a theory is correct(it just might take a while, or some work). There is no demand to 'believe' a theory outside of how well it has stood up to tests.

Religion, OTOH, works nothing like this. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all require faith. They contain moral codes, factual descriptions(though what is fact and what is parable is completely up in the air), as well as some philosophical viewpoint. All of these aspects are based on a couple of a priori assumptions(assumptions they assume to be true), such as the existence of god, the existence of only one god, the omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence of god, that god's communication(s) to his chosen people, who his chosen people are(always a point of violent contention), and the authority of religious texts to be accurate in their descriptions of all of this.

Beyond this, some adherents to these religions take their texts literally, as another layer of a priori assumptions. None of these things in religion are easily testable, and the times that things have been discovered that contradict these assumptions(and certain ideas derived from them), there has been much nashing of teeth and yelling on the part of the believers.
To contrast this with modern physics, the modern physical theories, as strange as some of them are, came into being in order to both explain and predict the strange and interesting things that have been discovered. At the same time, other theories, such as that of the ether, have gone down into the history books, and few even remember them(note the comparative lack of knashing of teeth and yelling).

That being said, religions outside of the dominant 3 western traditions have very different approaches to the whole matter, and are closer to what is considered philosophy, but thats a different post.

[OpaQue 15]

Grrr...Hold it! I thought we were talking about the BIG BANG theory... Now what about it ? No more comments ? huh ?