Big Bang

[Realitycheck]

Recently, mooey depicted the BB as not being an explosion, per se, which draws to mind combustion or nuclear fission or fusion. With the creation of quark gluon plasma in colliders, one is drawn to a belief that the BB was more of a release from pressure, though I suppose an explosive process is still possible. Since it is postulated that the intense vacuum from the vast, empty space enabled matter to spread at ftl speeds (which is still fairly hard to believe since we're talking about the speed of light) this would mean that space already existed. Do you think it's possible that all of this matter existed in the form of one supermassive "superstar" in a massive, empty universe prior to the BB?

 

This would still allow for the runaway expansion of matter once matter became sufficiently dispersed and gravity loosened its reins.

 

I guess that wouldn't really be a star, per se, but a completely different animal, a "unicore".

[MigL]

Wow. That is so far off the mark, I don't know where to start.

 

I guess i should recommend you read agood book explaning the BB theory.

[Realitycheck]

How does it diverge from BB theory? It incorporates it.

 

Oh yeah, well yeah, I definitely should have put it in Speculations, since BB theory doesn't extend back that far.

 

All day, every day, I read the latest theory, along with plenty of fact.

[Realitycheck]

That does bring up a good point somebody made. Since the future goes forward indefinitely, why should it only go back 14 billion years? Unanswerable questions ... Considering the enormity of it, it doesn't make much sense that all of the matter would be congregated in one huge point, but if that's what everything points to then that's that. Expanding space can be explained just from matter disassociating. Space doesn't have to grow like bread dough, but the analogy works to an extent.

 

If the space of the universe somehow grew ahead of the matter spreading ahead of it, I can see how this would give it more vacuum to pull with, to an extent, but has this actually been established, that space itself is growing or matter is just disassociating?

Edited September 4, 2011 by Realitycheck

[csmyth3025]

That does bring up a good point somebody made. Since the future goes forward indefinitely, why should it only go back 14 billion years? Unanswerable questions ... Considering the enormity of it, it doesn't make much sense that all of the matter would be congregated in one huge point, but if that's what everything points to then that's that. Expanding space can be explained just from matter disassociating. Space doesn't have to grow like bread dough, but the analogy works to an extent.

 

If the space of the universe somehow grew ahead of the matter spreading ahead of it, I can see how this would give it more vacuum to pull with, to an extent, but has this actually been established, that space itself is growing or matter is just disassociating?

The expansion of space is a natural consequence of General relativity. The model that is most generally accepted is the FLRW metric:

 

The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric is an exact solution of Einstein's field equations of general relativity; it describes a homogeneous, isotropic expanding or contracting universe that may be simply connected or multiply connected.^[1][2][3] (If multiply connected, then each event in spacetime will be represented by more than one tuple of coordinates.) The general form of the metric follows from the geometric properties of homogeneity and isotropy; Einstein's field equations are only needed to derive the scale factor of the universe as a function of time. Depending on geographical or historical preferences, a subset of the four scientists — Alexander Friedmann, Georges Lemaître, Howard Percy Robertson and Arthur Geoffrey Walker — may be named (e.g., Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) or Robertson–Walker (RW) or Friedmann–Lemaître (FL)). This model is sometimes called the Standard Model of modern cosmology.^[4] It was developed independently by the named authors in the 1920s and 1930s.

(ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLRW )

 

On the right-hand side of the cited web-page is a menu that can lead you to links that explain much of what is understood about the evolution of the universe - and why we think that our understanding is correct.

 

Generally speaking, the science upon which our understanding of the universe is based rests on the work of many very smart men over the past 400 years. It would be a good idea to know what their thinking is (was) before you try to formulate your own ideas about how the universe works.

 

New ideas are good, and we don't discourage them. Ideas based on "hunches" or "what makes sense" (to you) will have to measure up to the mathematical rigor of existing ideas and the experimental testing that they've successfully withstood.

 

Chris

[Realitycheck]

I have to admit, sometimes forums aren't the best source of information, but I'm not complaining.

 

I meant it when I said this should go into speculation. Obviously, lots of work has been put into a model that rationalizes hyper-ftl expansion of matter in a relatively small area, infinite density, and making unprovable conclusions with no evidence whatsoever, with just math, and no reason. I would suggest that the establishment would have been able to adjust the model accordingly to more reasonable specifications, but that perhaps they are infatuated with their own larger-than-life mythology, for who knows what reason. I remember someone named Martin who had a big issue with inflation himself. Why doesn't the establishment change? It's all just conservative, rational speculation, but why depict it as larger than life and drive people away in disbelief when you can be more realistic and still get the numbers to add up? I just don't buy it either, but I'm sure there is a good reason, maybe, possibly.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Realitycheck

[csmyth3025]

I have to admit, sometimes forums aren't the best source of information, but I'm not complaining.

 

...I would suggest that the establishment would have been able to adjust the model accordingly to more reasonable specifications...

I would suggest that you don't have even a basic education in the sciences. I don't say this pejoratively. It's just that you don't have the knowledge to determine what "more reasonable specifications" would be because you haven't studied the historical foundations of the theories that you find "mythological".

 

Make an effort to learn the science behind the theories. The scientific community certainly has its own version of "political correctness" that resists new and radical theories. This is a natural feature of any institution. Scientists are not conspiring to deceive the public into believing "unprovable conclusions with no evidence whatsoever". They're happy to leave that job to the politicians.

 

Chris

 

PS You're right, sometimes forums aren't the best source of information. I would encourage you to broaden your studies to include books and the many excellent on-line resources offered by reputable universities and recognized educators. Just about all the information you need is available on the Internet from reliable sources - at no cost. As I mentioned in my previous post, Wikipedia is a good place to start.

 

Chris