PDA

View Full Version : Misconceptions about the Big Bang



kodakball
2005-Feb-23, 09:52 PM
A very interesting article a must read.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...52383414B7F0147 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147)

scorpio711
2005-Feb-23, 10:46 PM
Very interesting indeed !!!! :) thanks for the information!
Scorpio

GOURDHEAD
2005-Feb-24, 03:22 PM
Thanks indeed! The paper, on the last page, attempts to address what I have called the limits of quantization of expansion across scales of size. This is the first attempt at this I have seen, and my lack of total agreement may be due to my lack of comprehension. I assume the information we have access to for objects now at 46 billion light years distance is from where they were less than 14 billion years ago.

piersdad
2005-Feb-24, 03:33 PM
very ineresting explanes a lot

scorpio711
2005-Feb-24, 05:50 PM
Gourdhead,
My understanding is similar to yours: the furthest objects we can see are "light-situated" at 14 Billions ly, that is, we see them as they were shortly after the bigbang, 14B years ago... but since then, they have been moved further because of the expansion of the Universe, and they are now (now means: now for us on Earth) situated at 46 Billions ly. May be, to be more correct, one should say that the "observable universe" from the earth is all objects which are within a 3-D sphere of 46B ly half diameter, centered on the Earth.
Pretty difficult to manipulate these concepts of space & time w/ an underlying expanding "structure" !
Scorpio

corkft
2005-Feb-25, 10:54 PM
So, here we are again, pondering our existence. Big Bang, seems more of a big puff to me. Picture this, the balloon is slowly expanding, puffed on (big hard puff at the start to get it going) harder and harder by the Clown. the balloon starts to take on a fantastic shape, what ever can it be? It started out bulbous, then an elongation was seen, the Clown pinched it here, pinched it there, it curls and swirls, grows bulbous again ;)

Where does it start and where does it end? Perhaps the balloon bursts and just makes a mess... :P

aeolus
2005-Feb-26, 12:03 AM
I can only hope I'm still around when the clown finishes blowing it up and makes a balloon animal out of it.

But not a dog or a stupid 'balloon hat'. No man; he'd better make the universe into something cool, like a girraffe....

magnum
2005-Feb-26, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by aeolus@Feb 26 2005, 12:03 AM
I can only hope I'm still around when the clown finishes blowing it up and makes a balloon animal out of it.

But not a dog or a stupid 'balloon hat'. No man; he'd better make the universe into something cool, like a girraffe....
I can only hope I'm still around when the clown finishes blowing it up and makes a balloon animal out of it.

But not a dog or a stupid 'balloon hat'. No man; he'd better make the universe into something cool, like a girraffe....

what do you mean? B)

vet
2005-Feb-26, 04:44 AM
DOGMA IS DOOM---i simply may not understand a bright community that just 'trails along.' You don't know Darwin is now a minor player in evolution---you express little creative individuality---you're not even talking about 'the multiverse', a subject of even newspaper reporting---you're in a world beyond your comprhension---so Dogma is comfotable---to mistake it for truth may be lethal to humanity---at least understand that.

antoniseb
2005-Feb-26, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by vet22@Feb 26 2005, 04:44 AM
you're not even talking about 'the multiverse'
Do you have any evidence for or against the existance of 'the multverse'? We have evidence for what we're talking about, but the multiverse is more in the realm of unthinking dogma. Think about it if it amuses you, but count on its reality at your peril.

corkft
2005-Feb-26, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by magnum@Feb 26 2005, 02:08 AM

what do you mean? B)
The expanding universe is often likened to a balloon being blown up, We were just having a bit of fun with the shape... :)

Guest_katie
2005-Feb-28, 07:56 PM
At last! VET2 has spoken out against the narrow minded view that our universe is special and unique. Just as those that were ignorant of the existence of other planets, centuries ago, some still believe in a single universe. Common sense should tell you that nature, and anything that is natural, never creates one of a kind. The universe is either infinitely continuous, which then means it consists of many like kinds of developing galaxies etc, or it may be that multiple universes develop far apart and separately in the same way that we see other galaxies evolving. There isn't any evidence of this, but for those that only believe what they are told to believe by others, [as happens with religious beliefs] I would say, go and think for yourselves and trust in you own observations of the natural world and use your common sense.

vet
2005-Feb-28, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Feb 26 2005, 02:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb @ Feb 26 2005, 02:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vet22@Feb 26 2005, 04:44 AM
you&#39;re not even talking about &#39;the multiverse&#39;
Do you have any evidence for or against the existance of &#39;the multverse&#39;? We have evidence for what we&#39;re talking about, but the multiverse is more in the realm of unthinking dogma. Think about it if it amuses you, but count on its reality at your peril. [/b][/quote]
apologies for being a rude yank---a simple search of sky&tel&#39;s archives will provide what you wish---thanks for the &#39;bop&#39;.

vet
2005-Feb-28, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by vet22+Feb 28 2005, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vet22 @ Feb 28 2005, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by antoniseb@Feb 26 2005, 02:34 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-vet22@Feb 26 2005, 04:44 AM
you&#39;re not even talking about &#39;the multiverse&#39;
Do you have any evidence for or against the existance of &#39;the multverse&#39;? We have evidence for what we&#39;re talking about, but the multiverse is more in the realm of unthinking dogma. Think about it if it amuses you, but count on its reality at your peril.
apologies for being a rude yank---a simple search of sky&tel&#39;s archives will provide what you wish---thanks for the &#39;bop&#39;. [/b][/quote]
just search &#39;multiverse&#39; and stand back. the evidence is solid, the physics also. perhaps david deutsch of oxford may come to my aid. i feel my angst, revealed in my post perhaps justified---got your attention---no offense meant---i have my moods. not to patronize, but seeing such a clever bunch, apparently 10 years behind &#39;the state of the art&#39;---well, pardner, got my dander up.

vet
2005-Mar-01, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Guest_katie@Feb 28 2005, 07:56 PM
At last&#33; VET2 has spoken out against the narrow minded view that our universe is special and unique. Just as those that were ignorant of the existence of other planets, centuries ago, some still believe in a single universe. Common sense should tell you that nature, and anything that is natural, never creates one of a kind. The universe is either infinitely continuous, which then means it consists of many like kinds of developing galaxies etc, or it may be that multiple universes develop far apart and separately in the same way that we see other galaxies evolving. There isn&#39;t any evidence of this, but for those that only believe what they are told to believe by others, [as happens with religious beliefs] I would say, go and think for yourselves and trust in you own observations of the natural world and use your common sense.
boy howdy, thank you ms. katie---seems most forget that ol&#39; probability point---anything happens once, the odds for a repeat go way up. some will say &#39;the universe&#39; encompasses many such as this, so why term it &#39;multiverse&#39;? because each is a discrete individual.
some say they have bizzare dimensions, aspects, etc. i doubt it---i&#39;ve mentioned before, &#39;the arrow of time&#39; may be the result of living systems literally, smoothly transiting from one to the next, so similar, as &#39;given-enough-time&#39; provides---we may be more formidable than any starship---universe-hoppers. Life is the key, and not understood.

vet
2005-Mar-01, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Feb 26 2005, 02:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb @ Feb 26 2005, 02:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vet22@Feb 26 2005, 04:44 AM
you&#39;re not even talking about &#39;the multiverse&#39;
Do you have any evidence for or against the existance of &#39;the multverse&#39;? We have evidence for what we&#39;re talking about, but the multiverse is more in the realm of unthinking dogma. Think about it if it amuses you, but count on its reality at your peril. [/b][/quote]
one thing confuses me---since the &#39;MV&#39; was proven near a decade ago---exactly how would this lead to any &#39;peril&#39;? ya gonna fire up your old spitfire? but siriusly, if your reasoning may show &#39;peril&#39;, many would like to know its nature. you got me curious. i love being curious. and for a yank, that&#39;s rare---it&#39;s usually beaten out of us.

GOURDHEAD
2005-Mar-01, 04:25 AM
From wikipedia:
The idea that the universe that we can observe is only part of the whole physical reality led to the definition of &#39;multiverse&#39;, the set of multiple possible universes . The term "multiverse" was coined in December 1960, by Andy Nimmo, then vice chairman of the British Interplanetary Society, Scottish Branch, for a talk to the branch on the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics which had been published in 1957. This was given in February 1961, and the word with its original definition, "an apparent universe, a multiplicity of which, go to make up the whole universe" was then first used. This was because, at the time, the definition of the word &#39;universe&#39; was "All that there is" and etymologically one cannot have "Alls that there is". "Uni" means one, and "multi" means many, so this meaning allowed for many multiverses.

The word was then used both correctly and incorrectly at various times in scientific and science fiction circles for several years. Then in the late 1960s science fiction author Michael Moorcock interpreted the word in a novel. After reading this novel, David Deutsch used the term "multiverse" in a scientific work as the totality of all possible universes throughout time, including our observable universe—the opposite of its previous definition. Other scientists, not being etymologists, then picked up and adopted the popular redefinition of the word.
If universe means "all that is", it is faulty etymology and semantic weakness to speak or write of multiverses especially if you mean parallel universes. I consider the above definition to be etymologically unsound. We don&#39;t seem to have the right vocabulary to express concepts about a universe partitioned into mutually exclusive sections. I prefer terms with the prefixes quasi or pseudo to multi and poly when discussing the universe and its characteristics. Also, I don&#39;t agree that the existence of mutually isolated sections, except for the speed of light and gravity constraints, exist.


since the &#39;MV&#39; was proven near a decade ago Can you provide a reference to this "proof" or was it more of a wild guess?

Sp1ke
2005-Mar-01, 03:17 PM
I, too, am intrigued by this "proof" of multiple universes. I like the idea and it would explain a few things but I think it will be difficult if not impossible to prove. The universe is all there is so anything we can detect or measure is part of our universe. I&#39;m sure a proof of the existence of another universe would be big news.

hoarem
2005-Mar-01, 05:21 PM
I think that one day we will discover other universes.

GOURDHEAD
2005-Mar-02, 02:56 PM
I think that one day we will discover other universes. If so, the definition of universe immediately enfolds them into the known universe, however they are defined. It&#39;s a semantic certainty.

Sp1ke
2005-Mar-02, 03:42 PM
I think it could be possible to detect another universe indirectly without it then becoming part of "our" universe.

For example, gravity is by far the weakest of the fundamental forces. That could be because it acts in a higher dimension across multiple universes so we only see a very small part of the force, whereas the other forces are wholly in our universe.

I could imagine some form of "leakage" across the boundary between universes (so if we say our universe is three-dimensional, this would be an effect in the fourth dimension). There&#39;s no reason why, in a higher dimension, there couldn&#39;t be parallel universes overlapping ours.

All v. speculative though. We probably need some coherent theories about parallel universes first that can then be supported or disproven by experiments.

GOURDHEAD
2005-Mar-02, 03:50 PM
However many dimensions there may be and however many "mutually isolated sections" we may find (forgive the oxymoronics), they are part of the universe. It&#39;s semantics, not cosmology.

buzzlightbeer
2005-Mar-03, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by vet22+Feb 28 2005, 11:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vet22 @ Feb 28 2005, 11:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by vet22@Feb 28 2005, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by antoniseb@Feb 26 2005, 02:34 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-vet22@Feb 26 2005, 04:44 AM
you&#39;re not even talking about &#39;the multiverse&#39;
Do you have any evidence for or against the existance of &#39;the multverse&#39;? We have evidence for what we&#39;re talking about, but the multiverse is more in the realm of unthinking dogma. Think about it if it amuses you, but count on its reality at your peril.
apologies for being a rude yank---a simple search of sky&tel&#39;s archives will provide what you wish---thanks for the &#39;bop&#39;.
just search &#39;multiverse&#39; and stand back. the evidence is solid, the physics also. perhaps david deutsch of oxford may come to my aid. i feel my angst, revealed in my post perhaps justified---got your attention---no offense meant---i have my moods. not to patronize, but seeing such a clever bunch, apparently 10 years behind &#39;the state of the art&#39;---well, pardner, got my dander up. [/b][/quote]
if you accept the assumption that space is infinite, then accepting level 1 multiverse is quite non-controversial.

GOURDHEAD
2005-Mar-03, 01:40 PM
if you accept the assumption that space is infinite, then accepting level 1 multiverse is quite non-controversial. What is gained by calling the unobservable portion of the universe a parallel universe?

antoniseb
2005-Mar-03, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by vet22 @ Feb 28 2005@ 11:05 PM
seeing such a clever bunch, apparently 10 years behind &#39;the state of the art&#39;---well, pardner, got my dander up.
We are not behind the state of the art, however there is a big difference between saying something has been observed and substantiated, vs. saying that it is possible, and supported by the evidence is another thing.

Many of us here are paying close attention to the development of brane-theory, and the many other ideas that describe various aspects of the universe. The idea of the multiverse has not been demonstrated.

corkft
2005-Mar-03, 09:55 PM
I, for one, agree with GOURDHEAD and antoniseb, as summerized by buzzlightbeer, "universe" is all encompassing...

So, the "big bang" was a local event.?...

And as a quick aside, it is rather humorous, buzzlightbeer is a gas giant now. What would happen if he also consumed mass quantities of beans? :lol: