PDA

View Full Version : The Big Bang - query


OFSO
12th Nov 2013, 19:42
I was watching some kind of television program with The Hamster last week, who was explaining how to build a universe (until I got fed up with visual gimmicks and plinky-plonky music and turned it off).

He made an assertion I don't understand. He said that the Big Bang happened everywhere at the same time, and it didn't have a central point, so that no matter where you are in the Universe today, you are always at the Centre with everything expanding away from you.

How can that be ? Surely every explosion no matter how big or small must have a point from which it originates and spreads out in all directions ?

Or did I misunderstand what Top Gear's answer to Radar O'Reilly said ?

Loose rivets
12th Nov 2013, 19:45
I should listen to a gerbil, you'll get far more sense out of it.:p

500N
12th Nov 2013, 19:47
"Or did I misunderstand what Top Gear's answer to Radar O'Reilly said ?"

+ 1

:ok:

vulcanised
12th Nov 2013, 19:53
That way lies madness.........

Watch Shaun the Sheep instead.

Dushan
12th Nov 2013, 20:01
... so that no matter where you are in the Universe today, you are always at the Centre


Of course I am. I live in Toronto, known centre of the universe...

Nervous SLF
12th Nov 2013, 20:06
Of course I am. I live in Toronto, known centre of the universe...


That might be a tad incorrect Dushan because as anyone from Vancouver will tell us Vancouver is not only the centre
of Canada and the rest of North America but also the centre of the Universe. Oh yes and they have also told me that
people from Toronto are a tad "different"


;);)

Dushan
12th Nov 2013, 20:15
If anyone is "tad different" that would be people from Vancouver...

Limeygal
12th Nov 2013, 20:17
I have always found Sponge Bob Squarepants to be an accurate source of information. Shaun the Sheep has some baaaad sources.

KBPsen
12th Nov 2013, 20:18
How can that be ?Because there was no explosion but an expansion of a singularity or nothingness or whatever was there before. If everything came from nothing or a single everything then everything was at the centre and everything started to expand at the same time.

Simple really.

tony draper
12th Nov 2013, 20:23
If you take a half inflated balloon,draw dots all over it with a felt tip pen then commence to inflate same keeping you eye on one specific dot it would appear to remain stationary and all the other dots would be moving away from it,the same would apply to all the other dots, don't matter which one you choose to watch,each one is stationary with the rest moving away from it ie they are all at the center with the rest of the dots moving away from them
All same the Universe.
Even the children in Gateshead know this
:rolleyes:

tony draper
12th Nov 2013, 20:26
Beaten by one second Mr Jazz,:E

rgbrock1
12th Nov 2013, 20:29
limeygal wrote:

I have always found Sponge Bob Squarepants to be an accurate source of information

Too much sun in the sunshine state, limeygal? And, as well, we all know that Mr. Squarepants is a bit, hmmmmm, ummmmmm, odd shall we say? (Odd is the politically correct term for something else I have in mind but wouldn't want to say risking to offend those who are so offended.)

ShyTorque
12th Nov 2013, 20:30
My hamster doesn't like watching telly.

500N
12th Nov 2013, 20:31
I am surprised he is called Squarepants then ;)

rgbrock1
12th Nov 2013, 20:33
500N

Bloody well right that mate! (Written like a true Brit, no?!!!)

I've always thought Mr. Squarepants, and his buddy* who really is a fruitcake, should join forces with the Telly Tubbies.

Actually Spongebob should be renamed to Spongebob Shitpants. :ok:

*Patrick Star. Which really should be Patricia Star.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Patrick_Star.png

rgbrock1
12th Nov 2013, 20:36
Yes, Lone Ranger. (And it's ho-ahh, and not the way you spelled it.)

Read me lips: Spongebob Shitpants is gay.

Oh, and by the way, what is it that you look at in the mirror? (Forget it, I don't want to know.)

500N
12th Nov 2013, 20:38
rgb

I really wouldn't know, I don't even know if Spongebob is a cartoon,
TV program or a book ? Never seen it.

You mean "gay" as in Marines than pick up the soap for the Ranger :O

500N
12th Nov 2013, 20:39
"Oh, and by the way, what is it that you look at in the mirror? (Forget it, I don't want to know.)"

rgb

I think maybe a Magnifying glass instead of a mirror ? ;)

Limeygal
12th Nov 2013, 20:39
This is how rumours start! :)

500N
12th Nov 2013, 20:42
Normally by the women gasbagging around the water cooler :O

ORAC
12th Nov 2013, 20:50
Light Cones OFSO, see here (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Lineweaver4_3.html) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone).

tony draper
12th Nov 2013, 21:09
Tsk tsk tsk! Mr ORAC, Light Cones and Quantum Entanglement is for edumacated folks like us,there were nowt wrong wi balloons and felt tipped pens for the rest.
:rolleyes:

arcniz
12th Nov 2013, 21:19
This perspective would be considerably altered if one were to entertain the premise of plural & approximately coincident singularities, way back when.

SilsoeSid
12th Nov 2013, 21:46
If you take a half inflated balloon,draw dots all over it with a felt tip pen then commence to inflate same keeping you eye on one specific dot it would appear to remain stationary and all the other dots would be moving away from it,the same would apply to all the other dots, don't matter which one you choose to watch,each one is stationary with the rest moving away from it ie they are all at the center with the rest of the dots moving away from them

Doesn't this half inflated balloon have a centre point from which all the dots are equally placed, no matter where they may be drawn? (assuming round balloon, as they mostly are?)

All the dots may well be expanding away from each other, yet at the same time they are all expanding from the centre of the balloon at the same rate.

The randomness of the placement of the spots means that the 'dot from dot' expansion will not be uniform, whereas their distances from the centre of the balloon will be uniform up until the point at which the expansion causes the balloon to burst.

For descriptive purposes, if you were to 'reverse time' at the half inflated stage, by placing the empty balloon on a baking tray in an oven on low heat, it will shrivel into one small rubbery yet crispy ball, which has a centre and this will therefore be the point of the beginning of time (the creative big bang), with the ultimate big burst being at the end of time.

funfly
12th Nov 2013, 22:09
Gosh!
You mean that the universe started as a ballon in an oven?

Wow.

:D

MG23
12th Nov 2013, 22:10
Doesn't this half inflated balloon have a centre point from which all the dots are equally placed, no matter where they may be drawn?

But no-one on the outside of the balloon can get to the inside.

tony draper
12th Nov 2013, 22:16
I have only one word to say about that Tesseracts!!
It's a word they use at the LHC instead of bollix.
:rolleyes:

SilsoeSid
12th Nov 2013, 22:47
But no-one on the outside of the balloon can get to the inside.

To simplify the answer to that,

Balloon Skewer - Sick Science! #074 - YouTube

PTT
12th Nov 2013, 22:47
That "centre", SilsoeSid, is the beginning of time (being the 4th dimension). As time passes (the balloon inflates) all the dots get further away from each other but all get further away from the beginning, too.

Whether the end result will be a Big Burst or a Large Raspberry and deflation as the Great Inflator draws another breath nobody knows.

probes
13th Nov 2013, 05:29
reminds me of a kid who said he doesnt want to become a astronaut, as they could fall into the Black Hole. :cool:

Krystal n chips
13th Nov 2013, 05:55
" I was watching some kind of television program with The Hamster last week, who was explaining how to build a universe (until I got fed up with visual gimmicks and plinky-plonky music and turned it off)."


You may be aghast to learn that I am in complete agreement with the above sentiments....although you did make one elementary error....you switched on and watched a programme he was "presenting"....or rather manifesting his ego and lack of ability or talent on.

" He made an assertion I don't understand"

This can only be viewed as a positive in that if you had understood, then you would have been on a par with him

SilsoeSid
13th Nov 2013, 09:57
PTT
That "centre", SilsoeSid, is the beginning of time (being the 4th dimension). As time passes (the balloon inflates) all the dots get further away from each other but all get further away from the beginning, too.

Thanks PTT, although I'm sure that's what I said;

... "which has a centre and this will therefore be the point of the beginning of time

All the dots may well be expanding away from each other, yet at the same time they are all expanding from the centre of the balloon at the same rate".

:rolleyes:

PTT
13th Nov 2013, 10:08
Er, no. You said in #27:
Doesn't this half inflated balloon have a centre point from which all the dots are equally placed, no matter where they may be drawn? (assuming round balloon, as they mostly are?)

All the dots may well be expanding away from each other, yet at the same time they are all expanding from the centre of the balloon at the same rate.No mention of time there, but it's possible you said it in another dimension ;)

OFSO
13th Nov 2013, 10:10
Thanks, guys. I have read "A Brief History of Time" quite often, made notes, looked up things I didn't understand on Sponge Bob...er, Google, and thought I understood it all until Hammond's explanation. It would have been better if James May had presented the program (but not MUCH better).

Krystal, couldn't agree with you more. Thanks.

P.S. A tip. Do not try the balloon experiment at home indoors (a) using slow drying black paint and (b) over-inflating the balloon, as afterwards your white living room walls will look like a negative photograph of the sky at night.

SilsoeSid
13th Nov 2013, 10:21
PTT,

Er, no. You said in #27:

Doesn't this ...

All the dots ...

No mention of time there, but it's possible you said it in another dimension;)



Please read all of post 27
:ugh:

PTT
13th Nov 2013, 10:30
It really would help if you could quote yourself correctly. Had you done so I'd not have been confused by your misquote and would have offered an apology for missing that bit.

SilsoeSid
13th Nov 2013, 10:47
PTTIt really would help if you could quote yourself correctly. Had you done so I'd not have been confused by your misquote and would have offered an apology for missing that bit.

So, when I quoted my post 27 ...
"which has a centre and this will therefore be the point of the beginning of time"

... in my post 35;
"which has a centre and this will therefore be the point of the beginning of time"

... how was I misquoting myself ???


The problem here is that you simply aren't prepared to admit that you didnt read post 27 fully before commenting, which is highlighted by you saying that there is no mention of time in post 27, when there clearly is :ugh:

ruddman
13th Nov 2013, 11:03
Evolution Theory.



A 'big bang'?

A balloon?


Nothing?

Then life?


:D




Good for a laugh I suppose...:ok:

Lightning Mate
13th Nov 2013, 11:41
Mr. D,

...moving away from it ie they are all at the center

But do the children of Gateshead know how to spell centre ?

Noah Zark.
13th Nov 2013, 12:55
If, as has been postulated, nothing existed before the 'Big Bang', what the kinnel went 'Bang' in the first place? :confused:

PTT
13th Nov 2013, 13:00
@ SilsoeSid - yes, it was all in there, but your post at 35 had the entire comment in quotation marks, indicating that the comment was taken as a whole. It wasn't. When two separate quotes from the same post are quoted it is normal to put them either in separate sets of quotation marks or separated by an ellipsis, and even then usually in the order in which they originally came.

I already admitted I didn't read the whole post. The clue was the bit where I said I "would have offered an apology for missing that bit". Now who's not reading posts? ;)

tony draper
13th Nov 2013, 13:23
Of course they do we have the Metro Center here.:rolleyes:

SilsoeSid
13th Nov 2013, 13:26
@PTT
So, I answered your points in the order they were presented. Was it really so difficult to understand post 35?

I already admitted I didn't read the whole post. The clue was the bit where I said I "would have offered an apology for missing that bit". Now who's not reading posts?;)

No you haven't!

What you have said is that you 'would have offered an apology for missing that bit', which of course you wouldn't have missed if you had read the full post.

No admittance of not reading, just admittance that you 'missed' a vital part, which only occurred because you failed to fully read it :ok:

Are you even reading your own posts?

PTT
13th Nov 2013, 13:32
Was it really so difficult to understand post 35?Yes. Clearly.
No you haven't!I have, and clearly got the inference based on your very next sentence:"...which of course you wouldn't have missed if you had read the full post.

No admittance of not reading, just admittance that you 'missed' a vital part, which only occurred because you failed to fully read it"
Are you even reading your own posts?Absolutely. Are you reading yours? Because you're making little sense now.

Loose rivets
13th Nov 2013, 13:35
Ah, heeemmmm.

When two separate quotes from the same post are quoted it is normal to put them either in separate sets of quotation marks or separated by an ellipsis,

It is?

I already admitted I didn't read the whole post. The clue was the bit where I said I "would have offered an apology for missing that bit". Now who's not reading posts?

Would have, if what? I think we should be told.:confused:

Not only have I proved it is possible to quote in a ordered and quoty sort of way, I have also highlighted an illogicality - and all while planning an answer to the creation of the Universe.

Actually, I don't have to pen the answer, tis all explained in me book. The total answer to the unpacking of this particular universe and the meaning of life. What more could folk want for £2.70?

Obviously a lot more, since sales last month were a staggering . . . one.:{

SilsoeSid
13th Nov 2013, 13:36
So, are you admitting that you didn't read post 27 before commenting on it?

SilsoeSid
13th Nov 2013, 13:38
... and are you accepting that post 27 mentions a beginning of time?

PTT
13th Nov 2013, 14:18
L-R - It is?Yes. Just as you did.Would have, if what? I think we should be told.You were told, in post #39. Do keep up ;) Not only have I proved it is possible to quote in a ordered and quoty sort of wayWhich is all I have asked for...I have also highlighted an illogicalityWhere?

SilsoeSid - So, are you admitting that you didn't read post 27 before commenting on it?I am saying that I didn't read a part of post 27, that part being the bit which mentions the beginning of time.

ORAC
13th Nov 2013, 14:49
If, as has been postulated, nothing existed before the 'Big Bang', what the kinnel went 'Bang' in the first place? "nothing" went bang. The energy sum of the universe is zero.

Loose rivets
13th Nov 2013, 15:48
Quote:
I have also highlighted an illogicality


Where?

Where I highlighted.:p



Now, back to the universe. The Universe. Suppose it did start from a Singularity. I've capitalized the term because that particular singularity became synonymous with that, 'whatever-it-was', about the time Stephen Hawking became known to the public. A Sunday Times article kick-started that extraordinary relationship - with the professor's lecture in the Royal Albert Hall many years later attracting the second largest non-musical audience since the Einstein lecture - once more using the venue in the way Prince Albert had in mind.

Anyway, we imagine an unknown form of energy exploding into absolute nothingness, and if there is anything Alan Guth is famous for, it's the Inflationary period that gets over a lot of real-estate planning problems. It didn't last long, but it meant whatever-it-had-become could travel outwards at speeds that make the speed of light seem like a photon trying to pedal a penny farthing through porridge.

We now have a big place residing in nothing. The atoms that are eventually allowed to form don't seem very interesting. They can't be any more basic, but if there was a plan, it was a cunning one, and it seems gravity was to be a key component.

You all know gravity made stuff come together, and fusion, and light, and creation of other elements including the bits in our modest forms, but what about the gravity itself? To me it's magic. The most exciting mechanism left to (fully) discover. It had to be there in the reasonably early universe. Stands to reason, but what is it, and what is it doing, exactly?

A long time goes by and Isac Newton stands on the shoulders of others to map out the results of this mechanism. He does a breathtakingly good job. Later, Einstein does much the same thing, but this time he builds a mathematical model describing a universe that's being modified by matter. Step back a moment to James Clerk Maxwell. Didn't he describe this beautiful self-sustaining balancing act between electrical and magnetic forces . . . one which did not require an æther? It seemed a photon could manage quite nicely swimming in nothing. He did, but I was never convinced.

I wish I'd know about Perter Higgs about the time I was studying for my pilot's license. An all pervading field, with some rather special components. That would have fitted the bill of my imaginings. He gave us something mass can set about distorting; something that might one day be kind of . . . manipulable. But what's it doing?

Cut to the chase, to stop self-mutilation to readers caused by boredom. Whatever this field is, it flows into matter. Into every single part of every atom. Where does it go? I had a tough time answering that, but if matter were changing scale, there is no limit to how much fuel poured in. After all, space is big, and we can't measure the change because our rulers are also increasing in size. Okay, can it be this mechanical? No, and here's why:

A man is on a very tall building - a building that is being fed by spacetime. He is also being fed by spacetime, but really doesn't care, be cause he is suicidally depressed. He leaps off the building, despite pleas from his girlfriend 20 floors below. As he leaps, the spacetime feeding him merges with the spacetime passing by on its way into the planet. It starts to affect him in a very subtle way. He doesn't suddenly attain the Earth's inflow speed, but accelerates at 1 g. Odd, but a fortunate fact. In the meantime, his girlfriend decides life is not worth living without him, and leaps off her balcony. Her plan is to travel to her death beside her lover. But despite a very well-timed jump, her plan fails.

For a moment she is right beside him, but he is traveling a lot faster than her. She curses spacetime, and gravity, and Peter Higgs. It's not poor old Peter's fault, but she's not in a good place metaphorically as well as physically and she up for cussing at anything as she sees her lover way below.

She picked on Peter because she happened to be a particle physicist, and she's read his paper. All too late she realizes how she is being propelled towards the mass of the planet and reaches for the pen in the pocket of her white coat. She scrawls her last thoughts onto her sleeve. "The Higgs Boson! They are imparting discrete packages of energy on my mass as they pass on the inflowing gravitational flow."

It was the secret to the universe, the ultimate answer, but unfortunately the world would have to wait. She had fallen into a disused chimney and was never found.

vulcanised
13th Nov 2013, 16:40
The energy sum of the universe is zero.


Know that feeling.......

iws
13th Nov 2013, 20:55
Remember that time, space, energy, and mass are created by the existence of same, so before the Big Bang, there was no time or space to have a centre. The expanding mass created its own space and time.

Look very carefully at the implications of E=Mc>2 and consider that c is distance (space) over time.

When asked what happened before the Big Bang, I ask my audiences
" what were you doing ten years before you were born?"

ehwatezedoing
13th Nov 2013, 21:09
When asked what happened before the Big Bang, I ask my audiences
" what were you doing ten years before you were born?"

Does this mean that the universe was in liquid form before the big bang ? :}

Lonewolf_50
13th Nov 2013, 21:31
This perspective would be considerably altered if one were to entertain the premise of plural & approximately coincident singularities, way back when.
It may be a weakness of the language, but plural singularities makes no sense. ;)

Because there was no explosion but an expansion of a singularity or nothingness or whatever was there before. If everything came from nothing or a single everything then everything was at the centre and everything started to expand at the same time.
Not quite. Using the term "before" when applied to a condition in which time is undefined, and wasn't even time yet, isn't correct.
Space and spacetime both arose from the big bang (see the above points on adding a dimension here and there) so there is no thing, nor any time, before t=0. There was just ... auhoom ... being ... that singularity dingus thingie ... OK, time for a pint! :p

arcniz
13th Nov 2013, 22:09
Rivets queries:
What is Gravity?


Our day's contribution to the Ubibabble:

Gravity is a very basic sort of entropic (Information) virus that infects Absolute Nothing. Causes it to turn lumpy in spots by losing or fuddling entropy in one locale*, while simultaneously gaining or defuddling it in another. What follows is more nothing in some places, less in others, followed eventually by a Big Sneeze that creschendizes the whole Universal Infection process for an insignificant temporary moment (TIME and disentropy being maybe equivalent) in a nonexistent place, unnoticed as a self-contained minor transient flaw in an unbounded vastness of pervasive maxentropic norm, an event that is transient and irrelevant, other than locally, in the grand unscheme of it all.

----
Reader may substitute any word one might wish for "locale". Name clearly doesn't matter - even less than matter itself, except as token for the concept of briefly Inconsistent Nothing as the essence of Everything. "Pigfat27" might do better... by virtue of being distinctively unused heretofore (we guess) in context of the existing nomenclature for this much exercised topic.

SilsoeSid
13th Nov 2013, 22:11
When asked what happened before the Big Bang, I ask my audiences
" what were you doing ten years before you were born?"

Well, for starters, half of me was in my Mum, as females are born with all their eggs in their ovaries.

Perhaps a bigger time scale would put that particular question in its correct context :ok:

arcniz
13th Nov 2013, 23:16
Lonewolf 50 says:
It may be a weakness of the language, but plural singularities makes no sense.

Precisely!
The purpose of my discourse was a reminder that the concept of singularity is a tautology, a premise defined to be true that is useful for thinking and discussing a perspective of ideas which otherwise would not be possible.

Fair Dinkum, so far.

A conceptual problem arises, however, when one builds the entire eschatology of Everything from the context of a "singularity". Ideas are pasted and plastered onto the thing to make it work as well as possible and theories are derived from reflection on the growing Ziggurat of connectivities thereto. The whole opus begins to take on a warm & fuzzy quality as a method for making sense of our existence and perceptions and becomes a cause in itself, ever more Baroque, encompassing and embraceable as Truth. The weakness of this process is that enthusiasm tends to replace rationality and most or all soon forget the whole paradigm depends on the Declaration of the first principle, which must remain inviolate for it to hold together as presently comprehended. It is, net-net, no more and noless than a highly elaborated belief system, predicated on "In the beginning there was the Word", disregarding the essential reality that the Word was and is no more than an arbitrary convenient hypothetical created to elaborate ideas on a wholly imaginary premise. This bears uncomfortable resemblance to religiosity - to which I am not absolutely opposed - but it seems important for consistency in pursuit of Truth to preserve the distinction between "real" reality and declared reality.

So, maybe we need a dictionary especially for sincere and dedicated iconoclasts? "Singularities" pl could be entry number 1. Or maybe entries 1 and 2?

Please provide some guidance and correction if you believe I am actually fundamentally wrong about this. Could be highly embarassing for oneself to err more than the prescribed number of times per day. Your "weakness of language" remark gives some hint your thoughts already are somewhat aligned with mine, but perhaps uncomfortable with the heresy of undermining such a nice theory by the observation that it all hangs on a single wholly hypothetical (and some might say improbable) premise. I would suggest that the potential and power for deflating or at least deconstructing tautologies surely is a strength of language, rather than a weakness.

ruddman
14th Nov 2013, 00:44
Evolution Theory.



A 'big bang'?

A balloon?


Nothing?

Then life?







Good for a laugh I suppose...



This. :ok:

ExRAFRadar
14th Nov 2013, 05:44
I like the balloon analogy but it can be misleading.

Taken from here:
Where is the centre of the universe? (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html)

The Famous Balloon Analogy

A good way to help visualise the expanding universe is to compare space with the surface of an expanding balloon. This analogy was used by Arthur Eddington as early as 1933 in his book The Expanding Universe. It was also used by Fred Hoyle in the 1960 edition of his popular book The Nature of the Universe. Hoyle wrote "My non-mathematical friends often tell me that they find it difficult to picture this expansion. Short of using a lot of mathematics I cannot do better than use the analogy of a balloon with a large number of dots marked on its surface. If the balloon is blown up the distances between the dots increase in the same way as the distances between the galaxies."
The balloon analogy is very good but needs to be understood properly—otherwise it can cause more confusion. As Hoyle said, "There are several important respects in which it is definitely misleading." It is important to appreciate that three-dimensional space is to be compared with the two-dimensional surface of the balloon. The surface is homogeneous with no point that should be picked out as the centre. The centre of the balloon itself is not on the surface, and should not be thought of as the centre of the universe. If it helps, you can think of the radial direction in the balloon as time. This was what Hoyle suggested, but it can also be confusing. It is better to regard points off the surface as not being part of the universe at all. As Gauss discovered at the beginning of the 19th century, properties of space such as curvature can be described in terms of intrinsic quantities that can be measured without needing to think about what it is curving in. So space can be curved without there being any other dimensions "outside". Gauss even tried to determine the curvature of space by measuring the angles of a large triangle between three hill tops.
When thinking about the balloon analogy you must remember that. . .


The 2-dimensional surface of the balloon is analogous to the 3 dimensions of space.
The 3-dimensional space in which the balloon is embedded is not analogous to any higher dimensional physical space.
The centre of the balloon does not correspond to anything physical.
The universe may be finite in size and growing like the surface of an expanding balloon, but it could also be infinite.
Galaxies move apart like points on the expanding balloon, but the galaxies themselves do not expand because they are gravitationally bound.

Blacksheep
14th Nov 2013, 07:06
... consider that c is distance (space) over time.I did. That's the origin of my questions - "What time is it?" and "Where?".

Time not having a constant universal value, and all.

On another slant. What are we? Are we our thoughts? Thoughts are bursts of electrical energy flowing through a network of neurons, or so we are led to believe. So it seems that what we think we are is a probablity function of a collection of subatomic particles. One with the universe? Maybe the Bhuddists have it right.


I know.I'm wierd. Even my Mum thought so.

PTT
14th Nov 2013, 08:19
Time not having a constant universal value, and all.Not sure what you mean by this. In natural units the Planck time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time) would be considered the unitary value:http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/f/3/bf3bd91d952e361a2c1253eadd7e7b8a.png
Being ~5.39106(32) × 10^−44 s in length it's not much use to us day-to-day though.On another slant. What are we? Are we our thoughts? Thoughts are bursts of electrical energy flowing through a network of neurons, or so we are led to believe. So it seems that what we think we are is a probablity function of a collection of subatomic particles. One with the universe? Maybe the Bhuddists have it right.Cogito ergo sum does it for me, as far as this goes. Very little else can be proven in any meaningful manner. On another note, there are more skeletons in the world than humans: be afraid!

G-CPTN
14th Nov 2013, 09:56
-tjHlFPTwVk

tony draper
14th Nov 2013, 11:00
Interesting article about what Medieval folks thought of time.:)
Money Museum (http://www.moneymuseum.com/moneymuseum/library/texts/text.jsp?lang=en&pid=336&i=1)

AtomKraft
14th Nov 2013, 11:26
Personally, I've no problem with the 'big bang' theory.

But let's no forget what it is; a theory.

Thus statements referring to it ought to include phrases such as 'we think', 'perhaps', 'maybe' 'might have happened' and so on.

Phrases such as 'this happened', 'this happened because', '.....so many seconds after...', 'before the Big Bang' etc are inappropriate with our present level of knowledge.

We think, we imagine and we theorise, but we do not KNOW.

Choxolate
14th Nov 2013, 11:43
We do not know anything, all we have is the best answer to a particular question based on the evidence we have at the time. This applies to everything not just Scientific questions. If not give me an example of one piece of knowledge that is known with 100% certainty and will NEVER change with the arrival of new evidence.

This "just a theory" applies to nearly every scientific explanation. The word "Theory" in science has a very specifc meaning which is different from the day to day use of the word which is closer to hypothesis

AtomKraft
14th Nov 2013, 12:01
Chox.

Sure.

But the people watching and listening to these programs are mostly not scientists.

So when they here prof Cox or similar say that 'this happened' they believe them, even though Cox would likely be quick to state the actual, true position, which is of course that this is our best guess to date.

To be clear, there's no way to be sure of the BB theory. And even if we knew what happened, the real question is 'why'.

And for that one we have utterly no clue.

G-CPTN
14th Nov 2013, 12:05
Archaeology is a science where best guesses are often accepted as fact. Rarely does an artifact come with a label attached when it is unearthed.

rgbrock1
14th Nov 2013, 12:07
PTT the scientist wrote:

Not sure what you mean by this. In natural units the Planck time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time) would be considered the unitary value:http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/f/3/bf3bd91d952e361a2c1253eadd7e7b8a.png
Being ~5.39106(32) × 10^−44 s in length it's not much use to us day-to-day though.

How very enlightening and interesting. However, after trying to get my former Infantry brain around the above, not only do I now have a migraine but said brain also spontaneously combusted. All over my cubicle's walls.

Thank you.

Blacksheep
14th Nov 2013, 12:21
The problem PTT is that there little letter 'c' in the equation. The velocity of light. Velocity is a measure of distance with respect to time. Time does not pass at the same rate universally. Gravity affects it for example. Your time is different from mine. More especially if you're a photon and time does not, for you, exist at all. Nor for that matter location.

PTT
14th Nov 2013, 13:01
c is specified, though, as 299,792,458 metres per second. It is a physical constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant).

PTT
14th Nov 2013, 13:06
And even if we knew what happened, the real question is 'why'.Why must there be a reason? Eventually it comes down to "because it did".
Feynman: FUN TO IMAGINE 4: F*****' magnets, how do they work? - YouTube
(with thanks to ORAC for posting this video originally)

AtomKraft
14th Nov 2013, 15:16
WE THINK.

Edittoaddcontent

funfly
14th Nov 2013, 15:36
Why do people feel the need to write replies with a very large bold font?

Do they feel that we are all so stupid that we need to be shouted at?

Point is that being so stupid we don't understand however loud they write it :ok:

Do you remember the notices that used to get pinned on the board, usually signed "by order of the management." They often had all sort of font styles;
bold, underscored, ALL CAPS, sometimes ALL CAPS & BOLD.

What was that all about?

KBPsen
14th Nov 2013, 15:43
Not quite. Using the term "before" when applied to a condition in which time is undefined, and wasn't even time yet, isn't correct. Read again. "Before" refers to the expansion. It's not difficult.

iws
14th Nov 2013, 15:50
Yes, the speed of light (in a vacuum) is a constant, It has to travel at that velocity to keep the electrical and magnetic fields in balance.

However, both time and space expand or contract according to the local
circumstances to make it so. This is why the theory is called "Relativity".

Yes, it is a theory, but any theory that can not only account for the effects we see, and also predicted them in advance, has my vote.

Lonewolf_50
14th Nov 2013, 16:43
What is Gravity?
It is what makes tits droop and bollocks hang. It is also what makes all aircraft eventually return to Mother Earth.
Read again. "Before" refers to the expansion. It's not difficult.
I read it again. I was right the first time.
Your "before" reaches beyond the beginning of time (in a negative vector, were time a vector) since your post describes expansion from naught / nothing / singularity ... what have you. (We agree on the challenge of describing this).

You can't have before if there isn't time (perhaps we are dealing with a weakness in the language) as before is a comparative term based on compared points in time, and time wasn't before spacetime began.
Spacetime is that thing of reality that the current model of expandex/big bang uses.

It isn't that difficult to understand.

To illustrate:

Imagine a standard Cartesian grid. X is horizontal, time. Intersection of x and y (mantissa and ordinate) is conventionally zero. Since time t=0 is undefined, you have to do like we do with a y=1/x graph, or an x = 1/y graph, and mark a little hole of "undefined" at the origin (handy how that works out, isn't it? ;) a bit of a pun there, unintentional) since division by zero is undefined, just as t=0 is undefined.

Y can be any dimension and isn't of a concern to us for the moment. The conventional Cartesian grid is "left negative right positive" along the x axis.

You can't go left. There isn't a negative time, hence no "before" any expansion/bang/whathaveyou.

All you have is "undefined" time and t moving to the right. Once time is, then you can probably argue for a value of negative time since time is in such models and problems a dimension in n-dimensional spacetime.

arcniz: great post, loved it! :ok:

My point on singularity is that it is a one of a kind. However, you can argue that you could deal in "local" singularities" as soon as there are locales, which means spacetime has to already exist. So, at origin/beginning, there is singularity, and there can only be one singularity since there is not other locale for one to be in.

Another pint, please! :cool:
The whole opus begins to take on a warm & fuzzy quality as a method for making sense of our existence and perceptions and becomes a cause in itself, ever more Baroque, encompassing and embraceable as Truth.
Indeed, but we do have both dark matter and dark energy to explain how it got all fuzzy like that, don't we? :}:8


PTT
Cogito ergo sum does it for me, as far as this goes. Very little else can be proven in any meaningful manner. On another note, there are more skeletons in the world than humans: be afraid! I don't recall Cogito ergo sum being proven, I thought it was an axiom. As to your second point, it explains the popularity of zombie movies, and the increasing sales of shotguns ... perhaps.

ORAC
14th Nov 2013, 18:48
You can't have before if there isn't time (perhaps we are dealing with a weakness in the language) as before is a comparative term based on compared points in time, and time wasn't before spacetime began. Depends; if you believe in a cyclical universe, branes colliding or budding off of new universes from another - or from our own for every quantum event, there can be. Further, there is no arrow of time - at least none theoretically at the moment, though Tipler might argue otherwise.

iws
14th Nov 2013, 19:17
Of course there is an arrow of time - what about entropy?

Blacksheep
14th Nov 2013, 20:18
Damn you iws, you just had to bring Entropy up. Just as we were getting somewhere. ;)

iws
14th Nov 2013, 20:32
Sorry - I thought the thread needed some cooling down...

tony draper
14th Nov 2013, 21:12
Who you need when these matters are being discussed is Mr Slasher,as well as being Pilot with a fondness for lady bumps and all round good egg. he was also a Astrophysicist.
:rolleyes:

PTT
14th Nov 2013, 21:24
@ Lonewolf_50 - I'd agree it is axiomatic, but logic only checks validity, not verity. From a logical perspective cogito ergo sum is just a tautology, but to not accept one's own existence as a premise is not at all useful and, it would seem, is self-contradictory.

Blacksheep
15th Nov 2013, 12:38
If you think you are, then you are. But what are you?

A series of random electrical impulses in a mass of organic material or a truly sentient entity?

If the latter, where are you? ...




.. and WHEN? :suspect:

Blacksheep
15th Nov 2013, 12:39
I told you I'm wierd

OFSO
15th Nov 2013, 12:42
We had a big bang at 12:45 local today - another earthquake under Cadaques. I don't know why, but these earthquakes which happen here in granite sound like explosions or sonic booms. Not like I would expect an earthquake to sound.

PTT
15th Nov 2013, 13:12
But what are you?Who can say?A series of random electrical impulses in a mass of organic material or a truly sentient entity? Is there a difference?

Lonewolf_50
15th Nov 2013, 13:32
@ Lonewolf_50 - I'd agree it is axiomatic, but logic only checks validity, not verity. From a logical perspective cogito ergo sum is just a tautology, but to not accept one's own existence as a premise is not at all useful and, it would seem, is self-contradictory.
Fair enough.
Depends; if you believe in a cyclical universe, branes colliding or budding off of new universes from another - or from our own for every quantum event, there can be. Further, there is no arrow of time - at least none theoretically at the moment, though Tipler might argue otherwise.
ORAC, a cyclical universe model would mean that we are all in one great, big bloody cosmic helicopter type thing, its many parts rotating in all directions at different speeds, and it's all about bound to come apart at some point. That arrow of time keeps getting bent by gyroscopic precession and thus can't travel in a straight line ...

Hmm, good model you have there. :ok:

ORAC
15th Nov 2013, 15:59
Cyclical Universe (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21499765) .......Since detecting the particle in their accelerator experiments, researchers at the Geneva lab and at related institutions around the world have begun to theorise on the Higgs' implications for physics.

One idea that it throws up is the possibility of a cyclical universe, in which every so often all of space is renewed......

Loose rivets
15th Nov 2013, 18:29
While in Essex this summer I bumped into an old pal, who though retired now, had been working on the JET (joint European toroidal) experiment for many years.

When it comes to life, the universe and everything, he is very pro Fred Hoyle. The professor may have scoffed at the big bang he named, but he eventually accepted the arguments. I haven't read any of his books from cover to cover, but the parts I am familiar with really impress me, and my pal. He carried arms full of Fred's books from his study and discussed some of the man's arguments with great enthusiasm. He certainly got my attention, not least of all because some of it fitted uncannily well with my totally unqualified ramblings.

I'll put the full link cos it's got a nice photo of Sir Fred. Reeet nice lad from oooop north. I hope we're still producing people like him, though old professors all standing around with not one puffing on a pipe just doesn't seem right.


Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle)