Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Big Bang


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you believe in the big bang theory? (32 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you believe in the big bang theory?

  1. Yes (22 votes [68.75%])

    Percentage of vote: 68.75%

  2. No (4 votes [12.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.50%

  3. Not sure (6 votes [18.75%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.75%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#16    saucy

saucy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.

Posted 29 May 2004 - 12:49 AM

What I'm saying is that if everything was created at the same time, during the same big bang that created everything, then all the stars and planets should be the same age.  They're not.  Some stars are old and dying, others are newer and others are middle-aged.  If all the matter around the sun was the same age, then why is some of the matter, such as Mercury and that, extremely close to the sun?  Why do a few of the planets move around the sun in a different direction than others?  How come the gassier, heavier planets are further out in the solar system while the lighter, smaller planets are closer in?  There are so many irregularities in our universe, galaxy and solar system for everything to have been created at the same time during one event.  Even if it was, where did all the matter come from to start the big bang?  What exactly banged?


#17    Ozmeister

Ozmeister

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2004
  • Location:Somwhere in Hyperspace

  • I come in peace....shoot to kill

Posted 29 May 2004 - 02:29 AM

I could explain to you , Saucy, what you have posed there in a rather long question, but I won't do it on this forum, in detail, as it would take up too much server space.

However, the long and the short of it is this........the "Big Bang" only created hydrogen, helium and a very small amount of lithium. So for all intents and purposes the extremely early universe was just a huge cloud of hydrogen and helium (in the proportions 75% and 25% respectively). The elements such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen were forged in the cores of the first stars that formed shortly afterwards (about 250-300 million years later). They formed from small irregularities in the density of the gas in the universe. These stars were huge compared to stars today....some reaching 1000 solar masses, and they scattered the new elements into the universe in supernova explosions. Star formation rates in those days were also a lot higher than now, so many of these stars were formed in a short period of time. Stars which formed after the deaths of these giants incorporated the elements the older stars shed in the supernovae. It is also from these shed elements that planets began to form in orbits about the stars.

So as stars die and shed their meaterial, elements are scattered into space to form  new stars and planets.....it's an ongoing cycle.

Planets form in the accretion disks which develop from the materials that condense to form stars. The accretion disk is made up of materials which haven't yet accreted onto the star. Smaller, rocky planets form in close to a star because the temperatures there drive off volatiles such as ices, hydrogen, helium etc and leave only heavier materials such as rock, iron etc. However the further out from the central star you go, the cooler it gets so things like water can survive in the inner disk's middle and outer portions. The Gas Giants form where they do because it's in the cooler parts of the disk where ices and that can survive and also where there is an enormous amount of materials (ices, hydrogen and helium etc) to form them.

All the planets orbit the Sun in the same direction....anticlockwise, but Venus rotates on it's axis in a clockwise direction. Probably due to a massive impact early in it's history.....and subsequent gravitational interactions with the Sun and the Earth. Uranus' axis is tipped over to 96 degrees for the same reason, a massive impact.

Galaxies formed from the same irregularities as the first stars did, however they formed from much larger clumps of gas than the stars within them.

Actually the term "Big Bang" was a derogatory term created by Fred Hoyle, a physicist who had a competing theory called the Steady State Theory. The term was liked by the proponents of the theory so it stuck. In actual fact, it was more like a "freezing out" of energy and matter than an explosion as such.....although the expansion of space during the Inflationary Epoch could be considered explosive. What happened is that when the universe underwent what is called Inflation, the four forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces), spacetime and energy were all in balance with one another. An aspect called symmetry. At the beginning of Inflation, the universe as we know it was smaller than a proton (10^-33cms), but at the end it was 10^50 or so times larger. When it reached this size, inflation in the manner it was occuring, stopped and symmetry became broken. The four forces of nature began to "freeze" out of the previous symmetry beginning with gravity, followed by the nuclear forces and then electromagnetism. Once this started, all the energy that was stored in the symmetrical spacetime beforehand also froze out and an enormous increase in the temperature of the universe occured. This created all the elementary particle and such we have today and also led to the creation of the hydrogen gas and such which formed first up. It also created the vacuum that we know of today in space. When symmetry was broken, the vacuum changed from a high energy, repulsive false vacuum to the low energy "true" vacuum we know today.

I've probably lost you by now, so I won't go on any further but if you would like to know more feel free to ask.

Edited by Ozmeister, 29 May 2004 - 02:32 AM.


#18    Benjo Koolzooie

Benjo Koolzooie

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined:10 Aug 2003
  • Location:England

  • Pink is like red but not quite...

Posted 29 May 2004 - 05:18 AM

Thank you for explaining that in a way which, I never could.  laugh.gif

Edited by Benjo Koolzooie, 29 May 2004 - 05:59 AM.

Cherokee Warrior you've lost your battle that's for sure, but what you left behind is still shining.

#19    Ozmeister

Ozmeister

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2004
  • Location:Somwhere in Hyperspace

  • I come in peace....shoot to kill

Posted 29 May 2004 - 05:44 AM

That's alright Benjo......all that happens to be my field of interest (along with Geology......and science in general).

Just as an addendum......during and before Inflation, the four fundamental forces were one force. When they freeze out of symmetry (more correctly supersymmetry) is when they become separate entities. Basically GUT's (Grand Unified Theory). I could also talk about String Theory and such but that would've left him lost even more.



#20    Benjo Koolzooie

Benjo Koolzooie

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined:10 Aug 2003
  • Location:England

  • Pink is like red but not quite...

Posted 29 May 2004 - 06:00 AM

QUOTE (Ozmeister @ May 29 2004, 07:44 AM)
I could also talk about String Theory and such but that would've left him lost even more.

Never mind losing him.....

I'm heading back to cryptozoology!  tongue.gif  

Cherokee Warrior you've lost your battle that's for sure, but what you left behind is still shining.

#21    Universal Absurdity

Universal Absurdity

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,592 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:everywhere

  • You wont win.

Posted 29 May 2004 - 06:39 AM

ok here's my two cents

There is energy in a vaccum, if there were none, light would not be able to pass through it. In space , any given area has the same amount of energy, even though space is constantly expanding- and accelerating. A theory on why this is ; the force of acceleration pulling on the vaccum causes tension, which replaces the energy dissapated by expansion.

Light travels through this vaccum at 300,000 km/sec, which is usually assumed to be the speed limit. However, the universe is accelerating in its expansion. If it gets to a critical rate of acceleration, there will be a considerable amount more energy in empty space which would allow light to travel faster. If enough energy were to be created due to expansion, the speed of light could reach at or near infinite speed. It would not last , the tension on the vaccum energy would cause it to collapse in on itself and form matter. (In its simplest form - hydrogen). This would casually put all matter in contact and explain the uniformity of the universe.

*The speed of light would be reduced drastically at this point (perhaps at or near its current speed), and would also cause whats known as a 'horizon'. A point which cannot be seen beyond, due to light not traveling fast enough to observe objects past that point.

The result would be comparable to current big bang theories, as well as answer more of the big questions left unanswered by those theories.


The reason that i dont believe in the big bang theory as it stands today is that there is no point in which we can say : that pea sized first step in the big bang happened here x. there is no singularity, no point which stands firm as the beginning.

when the hubble telescope looks back in time (yes thats what it does) there is a point which cannot be seen beyond. this is called the light horizon. if current big bang theory is correct, the further away hubble looks, the brighter it SHOULD get. the reason being that the big bang would have been a very hot , instntaneous expansion. heat makes light so where is the light? its been proven that the further you look back , the earlier in development galaxies are so we are looking in the right direction.

these are just 2 examples of big questions left unanswered by the widely accepted big bang theory.


I hope you find this interesting.


(I especially like the subtle hint that this could happen many times over. We may never know what the true beginning was)!


*this post was cut and pasted from previous posts from this thread. I only cut and pasted, so i would not have to re-type it all over again.

Edited by UniversalAbsurdity, 01 June 2004 - 11:31 PM.

Ű∩ίvệѓα|ΛЬşűяđĬŧỵ

Founder Of The Animated Avatar Workshop
43 things

#22    Ozmeister

Ozmeister

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2004
  • Location:Somwhere in Hyperspace

  • I come in peace....shoot to kill

Posted 29 May 2004 - 02:29 PM

The reason why you can't find the spot marked "x" and say "here began the Big Bang", is that the point you speak of doesn't lie within the universe. To the universe itself, the Big Bang happened everywhere all at once. Remember, what we see as the universe is just a very small part of a much larger object, which itself is just the "skin" so to speak of the whole object. The balloon analogy is a good one, for explaining the geometry.

To find the actual site of the bang, you would have to travel through higher dimensional space (superspace) to find it.

So far as the universe's accelerated expansion goes......this only became apparent after the universe reached 2 billion years of age. It was slowing down as per normal before that time because the cosmological constant wasn't large enough at the time to counter the deceleration (ie: to counter gravity). Now it is, and the universe's expansion has been accelerating ever since.

The energy of the vacuum is the zero point field of the vacuum. It's the energy generated by the random quantum fluctuations of the field (of spacetime itself). If it was completely empty of energy, the temp of space itself would be at absolute zero, because all the "normal" energy in the universe would "drain" into the vacuum zero point field until it was balanced out (conservation of energy....1st Law of Thermodynamics). Light would freeze still.....photons would have no energy at all.

For light to have had velocity variance as you stated, there would have to be a coupling of the cosmological constant and the zero point field such that one effected the other. Which is ironic as some recent studies have posited that the speed of light may not have been as constant in the past as it's supposed to have been. It may have been a tad slower, and it might become faster in the future. But it's still early days yet before they can confirm or deny this.




#23    Dan Luna

Dan Luna

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Joined:30 May 2004
  • Location:Manchester

  • Ghost of a moon technician from a future long ago.

Posted 01 June 2004 - 10:56 PM

I voted Yes. Extrapolating backwards in time based on observation and theory and arriving at the Bang doesn't depend on being able to say what made it go bang.


#24    Chauncy

Chauncy

    Quixotic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

  • "Sanity may be madness but the maddest of all is to see life as it is and not as it should be." (from) Don Quixote

Posted 01 June 2004 - 10:59 PM

QUOTE
recent studies have posited that the speed of light may not have been as constant in the past as it's supposed to have been. It may have been a tad slower, and it might become faster in the future


If this idea is true and the speed of light was slower and is gaining speed, then this seems to me to be contrary to the theory that the universe is expanding.

Does the exact speed of light play into this theory as a mitigating point?

Also if the speed of light is increasing then how exactly could this be measured?

What does this do to the Theory of Relativity?

user posted image

As long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost and science can never regress.
Julius Robert Oppenheimer. (1904-1967)
Posted Image

#25    Universal Absurdity

Universal Absurdity

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,592 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:everywhere

  • You wont win.

Posted 01 June 2004 - 11:30 PM

QUOTE
If this idea is true and the speed of light was slower and is gaining speed, then this seems to me to be contrary to the theory that the universe is expanding.


in fact, its quite the opposite. there is energy in empty space which allows light to pass through it. as the universe expands, there is more empty space (the vaccum) for light to travel through.  the theory i posted above detais that as space expands the force of the expansion acts on the vaccum of space, by streaching it. in doing so it adds more energy to the vaccum in such a way that the energy value at any point in the vaccum is always the same(which is why 'c' is always constant). It has been proven that the universe's expansion is accellerating, with the accelleration comes more energy. As it speeds up, there may come a point in which the vaccum cannot keep up with the accelleration. the result would be more energy in the vaccum, causing light to move faster. As it speeds up even further, the vaccum may not be able to keep its tension and would implode (so to speak), converting the energy within it to mass (hydrogen the simplest atom).


QUOTE
Also if the speed of light is increasing then how exactly could this be measured?

the same way its been measured in the past

QUOTE
What does this do to the Theory of Relativity?

next to nothing, a little refinement

For more information, try Faster Than the Speed of Light. Used copies are only five bucks


Ű∩ίvệѓα|ΛЬşűяđĬŧỵ

Founder Of The Animated Avatar Workshop
43 things




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users