Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Patrick Jacobus

The Big Bang

9 posts in this topic

For me, the theory is right. The explosion for my theory exploded because of too much heat and density so it can't have more. And it exploded! It produce too much, since a little rock that weights 1kgs in earh, can weight as much as 4 to 7 elephants combined weights. And then, the crack of the dot or that circle had been minimized by heat, so, just like balloon when have to much air. It explodes, and because of nothing could hold the power, and plus the power is super huge. It would never stop, until the cold and doomsday!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key questions about the Big Bang are that if it happened;

1. why has it not happened again

2. why did it happen

3. what happens to this cosmos if it does occur again

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

i'm guessing English isn't your first language Patrick, so i'll make allowances.

firstly, i also think there's something wrong with the big bang theory.

if the singularity our universe was formed from was infinitely dense, how could it expand?

you don't see black holes expanding do you?

....now there's a quandary.

secondary- if the singularity was all that there is, it coildn't have been infinitely hot.

heat is radiation, and, the clue being in the name, it needs to radiate for it to be considered radiation.

but, as you find in a singularity, there's nowhere for the heat to radiate in to, how could 'temperature' register?

unfortunately, the big bang theory is the best model we have for the creation of our universe, and despite its shortcomings, until someone comes up with a better model, it's the one i'll be sticking with....

.

Edited by shrooma
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its biggest disaster theory ever told yet somehow here we are, squeezed out of the darkness 15 billion years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is, where was the BB singularity located and why was it there instead of somewhere else? What I really mean is, was there another BB singularity nearby? Were there lots of BB singularities in the neighborhood? Was the whole area singular, and one small place BB'd?

I know it may not be correct to speak of all this in this manner, but you get the idea.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definitely problems with the BBT that still need to be resolved, and it is possible that the BBT will be eventually discarded in favour of a different theory.

(The BBT is no different than any other scientific theory in this regard. They are all incomplete.)

if the singularity our universe was formed from was infinitely dense, how could it expand?

It is not necessary for the Universe to expand. (There might be variants of the BBT that allow for this, but it is not necessary.)

In other words, the expansion of space is an internal parameter, within the Universe. This is confusing, because we are used to the concept that ``empty space'' is something we expand into.

However we are objects inside the Universe. The Universe itself is not expanding into anything.

If it is meaningful (and it might not be...) to talk about the ``size'' of the Universe that an external observer would see, then the Universe could still be the same external size that it has ``always'' been (of course this is problematic since time is probably also an internal parameter).

you don't see black holes expanding do you?

Just like the Universe, black holes could be expanding internally.

secondary- if the singularity was all that there is, it coildn't have been infinitely hot.

heat is radiation, and, the clue being in the name, it needs to radiate for it to be considered radiation.

but, as you find in a singularity, there's nowhere for the heat to radiate in to, how could 'temperature' register?

Heat is not radiation. Heat and temperature are internal parameters and are intimately related to the entropy of the system.

My question is, where was the BB singularity located and why was it there instead of somewhere else? What I really mean is, was there another BB singularity nearby? Were there lots of BB singularities in the neighborhood? Was the whole area singular, and one small place BB'd?

Your question is meaningful if and only if space is not ``internal'' to the Universe.

It is reasonably clear (from Hubble flow) that our local space is expanding, and during the inflationary period seems to have expanded faster than light. Therefore there could be infinite BBs ``next'' to ours (and doing the same thing ours was), but we will never be able to observe them.

In a sense, our observable Universe seems to have expanded from a singularity (or a near-singularity), but the initial total Universe need not have been singular (although it probably was homogeneous, which makes the concept of distance problematic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, the expansion of space is an internal parameter, within the Universe. This is confusing, because we are used to the concept that ``empty space'' is something we expand into.

However we are objects inside the Universe. The Universe itself is not expanding into anything.

If it is meaningful (and it might not be...) to talk about the ``size'' of the Universe that an external observer would see, then the Universe could still be the same external size that it has ``always'' been (of course this is problematic since time is probably also an internal parameter).

I was thinking about this the other day. Since the expansion of space is an internal parameter, from the perspective of an external observer (located in 'elsewhere', outside the universe's 'light cone', so to say), the universe would have no size at all, since it is not expanding into the 'elsewhere' in which the observer is located.

In this sense, the universe occupies no external volume, since it is not expanding into anything. Since the universe only exists internally and not externally, does the universe really exist? Fundamentally it's just a quantum soup at the sub-Planck scale, just probabilities for virtual particles to exist. At this scale, is it possible to define reality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is, where was the BB singularity located and why was it there instead of somewhere else? What I really mean is, was there another BB singularity nearby? Were there lots of BB singularities in the neighborhood? Was the whole area singular, and one small place BB'd?

I know it may not be correct to speak of all this in this manner, but you get the idea.

Is there a possibility the universe will change into something else entirely? As well as the laws of physics its obvious intelligence was also a product the singularity concieved.

Would we recognize our universe 15 billion years from now? Or is it simply that we are headed towards another singular event, the end perhaps? And so on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a possibility the universe will change into something else entirely? As well as the laws of physics its obvious intelligence was also a product the singularity concieved.

Would we recognize our universe 15 billion years from now? Or is it simply that we are headed towards another singular event, the end perhaps? And so on?

If our universe exists in a false vacuum state that is unstable, it may topple into a true vacuum state (lower energy level) and destroy the universe as we know it! It's possible.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.