DID IT OR DIDN"T IT HAPPEN THAT WAY?

[rigney]

When our universe began, supposedly it was accompanied by extreme heat in the millions or perhaps even billions of degrees Kelvin. Did this event actually take place? Who can say, other than scientists; who really want to solve the issue? For simplicity's sake and the fact we are here, assume it did happen as such. Being a pragmatist with nothing to accentuate or back up my reasoning, it's quite possible our world sprang from such a nothingness? If so, then wouldn't it be rational to assume it will return to that same nothingness? Don't get me wrong, this has nothing to do with science or religon, yada yada; just a question. And all of this, from a primordial soup? Yes! I believe it actually happened just that way. "Big Bang", you have my vote. Anyone want to refute it?

[insane_alien]

When our universe began, supposedly it was accompanied by extreme heat in the millions or perhaps even billions of degrees Kelvin. Did this event actually take place?

 

yes, or something that appears very much like it.

 

also, THREAD TITLES DON'T HAVE TO BE IN ALL CAPS

[md65536]

billions of degrees Kelvin.

A pedantic correction: It's just "billions of kelvin". The kelvin is not referred to or typeset as a degree.

For simplicity's sake and the fact we are here, assume it did happen as such. Being a pragmatist with nothing to accentuate or back up my reasoning, it's quite possible our world sprang from such a nothingness? If so, then wouldn't it be rational to assume it will return to that same nothingness?

To assume something is true you'd want reason to accept it as true, such as consistent observation or logical deduction. The idea that it all came from nothing isn't based on assumptions, but on reasoning and evidence.

 

It's definitely reasonable to suggest that the universe could return to nothing, but you'd have to provide the reasoning before I'd call it a rational assumption. I don't think "it was like that before so it will return to that state" is a reasonable self-evident argument. That assumes it's not a "one way" process. The laws of entropy describe a one-way process, I think, and seems a more reasonable description of the universe than "it will return to the way it was".

 

Say you dropped a box of macaroni. It wouldn't be rational to say "These all came from the box, so I assume they will all end up back in the box at some point."

 

I may be wrong, but... The idea of the universe coming from nothing is that the sum of all energy in the universe is zero... it all cancels each other out. If you assumed it was all brought back together, you might assume it would cancel each other out. But what will annihilate all the spread-out matter and energy if the universe expands to the point of heat death?

Edited February 28, 2011 by md65536

[jackson33]

rigney; Since you entered this thread in Speculations, I suppose no one will be punished for offering an opposing opinion'...

The following link is one of maybe 500 different versions of BBT theory I've read over the years. I claim being skeptical today, to get along on these forums, while in the past before BBT was accepted, agreed with SSU Theory the opposing theory for years.

 

The thought temperatures 1/100th SECOND after BB was 100BK and I've seen some pretty ridicules figures on what was thought 1/1000th second after, much hotter, it also give you a pretty good explanation in time lapse form. I'll hold back at this time, to see where this goes, but BBT does NOT get my vote...

 

Time ~ 1/100 Second

 

At this stage the temperature is about 100 billion Kelvin and the density is more than a billion times that of water. The Universe is expanding rapidly and is very hot; it consists of an undifferentiated soup of matter and radiation in thermal equilibrium. This temperature corresponds to an average energy of the particles of about 8.6 MeV (million electron-Volts). The electrons and positrons are in equilibrium with the photons, the neutrinos and antineutrinos are in equilibrium with the photons, antineutrinos are combining with protons to form positrons and neutrons, and neutrinos are combining with neutrons to form electrons and protons. At this stage the number of protons is about equal to the number of neutrons. [/Quote]

[ajb]

There is plenty of evidence that the Universe was much smaller, hotter and denser than today. Tracking this back classically leads to a singularity, a point-like origin of our Universe. However, it is believed that quantum effects smear this singularity and quantum gravity is required to really understand this.

 

So, the "big bang", that is the Universe was smaller and expanded into what we see today is not really disputed. Details are of course disputed as is the nature of the "quantum singularity".

 

Today the best model is the lambda CDM model. This model "cuts out" the initial singularity.

[rigney]

yes, or something that appears very much like it.

 

also, THREAD TITLES DON'T HAVE TO BE IN ALL CAPS

 

Yea!, but when the middle finger of my right hand comes down on that shift key, I haven't a clue as to what's gonna happen? Spent 10 days in typing class back in 53. Seriously though, other than what science have deemed to be gospel, do we really know what happened?

[swansont]

Since you entered this thread in Speculations, I suppose no one will be punished for offering an opposing opinion'...

 

!

Moderator Note

As a point of clarification, it is expected that all rebuttals against and support for a speculations topic will be based on accepted science; quoting a prevailing hypothesis of its time, or the state of a theory at a historical point is within that spirit. Countering speculation with different speculation, however, is considered hijacking.

[rigney]

There is plenty of evidence that the Universe was much smaller, hotter and denser than today. Tracking this back classically leads to a singularity, a point-like origin of our Universe. However, it is believed that quantum effects smear this singularity and quantum gravity is required to really understand this.

 

So, the "big bang", that is the Universe was smaller and expanded into what we see today is not really disputed. Details are of course disputed as is the nature of the "quantum singularity".

 

Today the best model is the lambda CDM model. This model "cuts out" the initial singularity.

 

Actually, I've come to depend on your input. Honesty and simplicity is this forums finest attribute. More important, it's knowledge the world needs to know and understand. Now back to my BS. I believe our universe 'was a solid", and more than a billion miles in any direction, when the BB began.

 

rigney; Since you entered this thread in Speculations, I suppose no one will be punished for offering an opposing opinion'...

The following link is one of maybe 500 different versions of BBT theory I've read over the years. I claim being skeptical today, to get along on these forums, while in the past before BBT was accepted, agreed with SSU Theory the opposing theory for years.

 

The thought temperatures 1/100th SECOND after BB was 100BK and I've seen some pretty ridicules figures on what was thought 1/1000th second after, much hotter, it also give you a pretty good explanation in time lapse form. I'll hold back at this time, to see

where this goes, but BBT does NOT get my vote...

 

Jackson, Since I keep everyone else on my butt, why should I expect anything different from you? Seriously though, other than some well thought out, aged formulations, does anyone have a real clue? Hell no! If simpatico rules the roost, best we find another way to get our points across. Not to be nasty, but I would disagree with GOD, if I thought there was a possibility of my winning. Edited March 1, 2011 by rigney

[rigney]

There is plenty of evidence that the Universe was much smaller, hotter and denser than today. Tracking this back classically leads to a singularity, a point-like origin of our Universe. However, it is believed that quantum effects smear this singularity and quantum gravity is required to really understand this.

 

So, the "big bang", that is the Universe was smaller and expanded into what we see today is not really disputed. Details are of course disputed as is the nature of the "quantum singularity".

 

Today the best model is the lambda CDM model. This model "cuts out" the initial singularity.

 

Well, this morning, thanks to you; I have another outlook of the BB theory. "Lamda CDM". Yesterday I wouldn't have had a clue as to its meaning. Even the words, cold dark matter are formidable. Went on the internet earlier trying to get a read on it, but at my speed it would require a couple years to digest the basics, if even then. But why is it we seem to have such a fatalistic attitude when it comes to the universe? Perhaps all of the calculations point to a dispursement ending in an eventual nothingness, but could there be some other alternative? Do we actually know what either dark matter or dark energy are at this time? Are they actually a part of the universe, or hypothetical?

I hope someone will soon come up with a practical calculution that matter may revert to its original form after having becoming a physical part of the universe as we know it.

Edited March 1, 2011 by rigney