The Big Bang Theory

[X-ray]

Aw, you replied faster than I could edit: please read my edit, Blobzie.

[blobrana]

Hum,
Yeah that a good analogy for matter /anti-matter that was create at the start.
By all accounts they were produced in equal amounts and they both cancelled out - but not quite...there was a small imbalance (see my big post) and we ended up with matter.

The imbalance of course is due to the creation of space-time gravity (which is the real minus one)

[bjjones37]

blobrana wrote:
Hum,
Here is a small summary of the evolution and beauty of the big bang theory. (As it has not really been properly outlined here).
As I understand it, when the Time = 10^-43 seconds, and the Temp = 10^32K (the Planck epoch), all four fundamental forces were unified and "particles" as we known them could not have existed. Beyond this point, the classical theory becomes meaningless, because our conventional physics breaks-down.....

....That describes not an infinite point (and gets around the mathematical problems dealing with infinities) but a tiny finite string/membrane (aka 5 dimensional membranes that collided to form the bb)

Who are you? I though Einstein was dead! :-D

[bjjones37]

If you guys can stand to hear a layman at it again, I heard somewhere that physical nonexistence (perfect vacuum?) has a higher inherent energy state and a lower entropy state then physical existence - making existence sort of inevitable. Or did you say that already in words I couldn't understand? :-D

[X-ray]

@ Blobzie

"..By all accounts they were produced in equal amounts and they both cancelled out - but not quite..."


That's what I want to know: where did the +1 and -1 originally come from? From what were they 'produced' according to your understanding?

[blobrana]

Hum,
I think Kenny  covered that with his quantum fluctuations.
 

Yeah that correct, it started low, as the universe gets older (evolves) the entropy gets higher and higher.

Most ppl confuse entropy with  the arrow of time, however a ultra new theory predict that a universe  at the `end` is basically very very big with very few bits of matter in it (the observable universe  is smaller than the expansion of space) but it still has a high entropy.

It proposes that  quantum fluctuations can occur in that `empty` space and create another universe (like a bud), except in that universe the `time` seems to runs backwards – high entropy to low entropy… and so on….into philosophy…

[JaXanim]

I believe they're now beginning to think that Fred Hoyle, Bondi(?), etc. may well have been correct in their Steady State Theory. Can't find the reference ATM.

JaX

In the Jewish Torah the first five verses of Bereishit have more or less word for word the same explanation for the first day of creation as the big bang theory.

pdf

[blobrana]

Hum,
The original Steady-State Theory states that the laws of physics were the same in the past as today.

How could we be sure – we look at the spectra of stars

The laws of physics have to be the same in all parts of the universe, and at all times as well. The Universe would also be the same, always static, always contracting or always expanding.
Unfortunately,
Olbers Paradox ruled out the first two by the simple Observation that the sky is dark at night.

Hoyle proposed that the decrease in the density of the universe caused by its expansion is exactly balanced by the continuous creation of matter uniformly condensing into galaxies that take the place of the galaxies that have receded AWAY from the Milky Way, thereby maintaining forever the present appearance of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory

Therefore, we still see an unchanging view of the universe…

To produce the matter, `negative energy` would balance out the expansion and condense out into new matter. Very similar to the virtual particles and false vacuums.

So what do we see today?

Unfortunatly, the distribution of deep space radio sources is not uniform.
A graph of the log of the number of sources at a particular brightness, to the log of the number of sources brighter than that brightness, should have a gradient of 1.5 (=3/2).
For radio sources we see the ratio is 1.8 showing that there are more bright radio sources at greater distance, and hence earlier times than would be expected for a steady state universe.
The conclusion is that the universe is evolving or at least changing.

The discovery of quasars in 1966, also provided evidence the constitution of the universe a few billion years ago was very different than it is today, and of course, the microwave background radiation (CBR), contradicts the steady-state theory.

We have an elegant theory that does not match up to observation.
in the future the theory may be `tweaked` to fit, but just now it doesn`t.
If it’s wrong it’s wrong.

However you may be referring to the tweaked SS theory, quasi-steady state theory...

Which still doesn’t answer as many problems as the BB theory,(the new theory just answers the CBR problem);
Though it may be ultimately correct, (they all are theories) it  is discounted by most astronomers because it is not as elegant as the BB theory.

[the_leander]

As I have seen often in both Nature and in mans own inventions, Elegance does not equate to functionality, indeed in mans inventions, elegance often comes at the cost of functionality.

damn but I'm feeling deep tonight

[blobrana]

Hum,
If  only you could see what I've seen with your eyes.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
 Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.

 I watched c-beams ...
glitter in the dark near Tanhauser Gate.
All those ...
 moments will be lost ...
in time, like tears
... in rain.
 Time ...
to have a deep fried mars bar

[X-ray]

Isn't she lovely?

[X-ray]

Now Blobzie, I have been thinking about the scales analogy.

My original problem was that I couldn't see how 1 could come from 0, and you have given me a balance theory that says that the 0 is actually a resultant of a mix of lots of -1s and lots of 1s. You hinted also that originally the number of minuses and pluses was equal, thus giving us a balanced zero, but that subsequently, one outweighed the other and the result was greater than zero (or less than, it's the same to me).

Now: consider, if you will, the previous example I gave you with the two scales. The scale that I understand as having 'nothing' is the one that is balanced and has no items on either platter. The other scale that is also balanced has items on each platter, of equal mass.

Now: if the item on the one platter manages to exceed in weight or quantity the item on the other platter, we have an imbalance and the scale tips in that direction (again, I don't mind if it tips negative or positive). Let's say it tips to the value of 2.
To all intents and purposes, an equally distributed weight that subsequently becomes 'heavier' on one side, is exactly the same as level empty platters, where a weight is added to only one side.

What I mean is, by my definition of 'nothing', the 0=1 problem still exists.

But by your explanation we still have a problem (I hate to use mathematics here, because I think a mathematical zero doesn't equal what 'nothing' is, but it is an equation  that best describes my logic to you):

[(1) + (-1)] + x = x

(where x cannot equal zero)

In other words, Blobzie, I'm still seeing a linear progresion of variables here. We start with nothing [(1) + (-1)], then we add x (which is the resultant constituents of the universe as we know it), and we are left with x, which is fine.

My question is not about the mathematical result of this equation, it is about where we got the x from to add to nothing, to be left with x.

I'm not arguing about what the value of x is, or whether it is positive or negative. My simple brain still sees 0=x or 0=1 and that is what I have trouble comprehending.

[Turambar]

Time ...
to have a deep fried mars bar

I think this sums up the thread rather well. Where the universe came from is as unexplainable as why a deep fried mars bar tastes good. I gave up thinking about how the universe came from and whats beyond it and infinity etc its a sure fire way to cause insanity

[Karlos]

X-ray wrote:

[(1) + (-1)] + x = x

(where x cannot equal zero)

Even if x does equal zero, the above is satisfied. I'm probably missing your point, however :-)

 

[bloodline]

@X-ray

I think your problem is not with what is on the scales, but the scales themselves...

I like to think of the universe as an equation, it doesn't matter what that equation is, all that matters is that it is more or less ballanced.

Now the question you ask is: Why is there an equation?

The Weak anthroplogical theory satifies that question for me.