Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: caboose17 on 26/05/2008 03:56:05
-
The Big Bang Theory is good and all but it goes COMPLETELY against all laws of physics. The law of conservation of matter and energy states that matter and energy cannot be either created or destroyed only converted into each other.
so how does this theory work? i also do not believe that the theory Einstein favored is true either. (he favored a continuous universe. one with no end and no beginning).
So what theory could possibly work.
the only other one i can think of is that before the Universe was pure energy and something happened to that energy to create matter. but i see holes in this as well such as what caused this to occur and where did that energy come from. so can somebody help?
-
Yeah me too. I see black holes in the big bang theory.
-
The Big Bang Theory is good and all but it goes COMPLETELY against all laws of physics.
Of course it does, if the Laws you are referring to are the old ones. There isn't an explanation which doesn't involve modifying or rejecting some of the old laws.
-
I quite like the idea that the big bang occurred as a result of two branes colliding in a higher dimension. I don't fully understand it (or rather I have understood it, then lost it again, as is so often the case with these things), but I do like it.
-
Perhaps you could give me a brief description of what a Brane is and how this collision could work.
It's easy to get carried away with new words. I still struggle with the old ones.
-
the only other one i can think of is that before the Universe was pure energy and something happened to that energy to create matter. but i see holes in this as well such as what caused this to occur and where did that energy come from. so can somebody help?
The universe is created in such a way that if we want to know the begining
we have to know the end and to know the end have to know the begining vice versa.It's not unusual the title speaks of its content and without the content there is no dicription of the title.
If we can discover the very first thing been created it will give the description of the rest.
Imagine we have found it and know the truth. In essence it means we got the knowledge which is agreed in our mind. The real question is how the knowledge translate into a human mind that verifies it and recognizes it’s true meaning.
Doesn’t it seem that it’s the mind the real wonder? It’s more important to know the form of the mind rather then the origin of the matter. Without the mind we don’t have a ground.
-
So we might as well stop making any effort with Science, then?
-
So we might as well stop making any effort with Science, then?
No. With the scientific discoveries we are getting a biger picture of nature. Thus somehow we're discovering ourselves. But we do not have the full picture of nature. Consequently we can't give an acurate discription of everything. The question is can we get the full picture with science alone?
Perhaps someone else thought that too as I read it he said I can give you an acurate discription of my arm how it streach but can't tell you why it moves when I want it to move. We can see here there is a limit and we have to make our progression knowing that we have a limit.
-
Perhaps you could give me a brief description of what a Brane is and how this collision could work.
It's easy to get carried away with new words. I still struggle with the old ones.
To be honest, I can't explain it. It's one of the facets of string theory, and briefly handled on the wikipedia page for Brane Cosmology. It's all quite far above my head, but when explained well it seems to make a lot of sense. I wouldn't be able to explain it well, and so I wouldn't be able to make it make sense!
-
Perhaps you could give me a brief description of what a Brane is and how this collision could work.
It's easy to get carried away with new words. I still struggle with the old ones.
To be honest, I can't explain it. It's one of the facets of string theory, and briefly handled on the wikipedia page for Brane Cosmology. It's all quite far above my head, but when explained well it seems to make a lot of sense. I wouldn't be able to explain it well, and so I wouldn't be able to make it make sense!
I'll have a shot at it. Super string theory, M-Theory, you have layers of dimensions and lots of universes, a multi-verse. Each universe has it's outer brane, the outer dimension- like a soap bubble, so two soap bubbles(universes) hit each other, and you get the big bang and a new third universe is made from the energy of the other two.
That basically is the idea, if you have lots of universes bobbing around in some other dimensional space and two hit each other then the result would be the big bang.
You know a gob stopper, each colour is a layer, each layer is a dimension, the last dimension is the Brane(where the universe ends).
-
I'll have a shot at it. Super string theory, M-Theory, you have layers of dimensions and lots of universes, a multi-verse. Each universe has it's outer brane, the outer dimension- like a soap bubble, so two soap bubbles(universes) hit each other, and you get the big bang and a new third universe is made from the energy of the other two.
That basically is the idea, if you have lots of universes bobbing around in some other dimensional space and two hit each other then the result would be the big bang.
You know a gob stopper, each colour is a layer, each layer is a dimension, the last dimension is the Brane(where the universe ends).
I would like to add from me, that if you except the idea that there are other universes, then it follows they would be different:
On collision it could also be that the two universes merge into one big one, or one becomes bigger by stealing the others energy- and so you'd end up with one big and one small universe.
It would in my humble oppinion, also be the case that some universes if they hit each other wouldn't do anything they would just take the impact and maintained there integrity. I am therefore suggesting that it would depend greatly on the two types of universe that hit each other and the way in which they hit, as to what effect would be rendered. Some would bounce off each other, others would cause a big bang, others would merge, so on and so forth.
-
On collision it could also be that the two universes merge into one big one, or one becomes bigger by stealing the others energy- and so you'd end up with one big and one small universe.
It's worth pointing out that this 'collision' is not like two battleships hitting each other. They will be encountering each other via a dimension which isn't one of your ordinary XYZ's so don't get carried away with any simple pictures in your mind!
-
On collision it could also be that the two universes merge into one big one, or one becomes bigger by stealing the others energy- and so you'd end up with one big and one small universe.
It's worth pointing out that this 'collision' is not like two battleships hitting each other. They will be encountering each other via a dimension which isn't one of your ordinary XYZ's so don't get carried away with any simple pictures in your mind!
Who exactly are you talking to there? What simple pictures? If anything I'm adding complexity. I am having trouble with you here, one minute you don't understand the brane, the next it's simple pictures.
Clearly that dimension isn't one of you XYZ's. Are you talking to the other people?
Battleships!
-
Jolly
I asked for a definition of Brane because people often tend to 'name drop' on these fora yet they may not be sure what it means. Certainly, it isn't a commonly understood idea.
Also the notion of 'collision' in the context of universes, if it's not qualified by some detailed explanation, conjures up a very 'conventional' picture of big objects bashing into each other.
If you want to have a discussion which will entertain readers yet 'get somewhere' it is necessary to include a lot of caveats or people can get a very false idea of what is actually cutting edge.
I find that most people have enough trouble just understanding the true consequences of Newtons laws so getting ones head around the fringes of Cosmology is a tall order.
-
That's pretty much why I didn't attempt to explain it. When it was explained to me by someone qualified to do so it seemed simple, beautiful and logical. If I try to explain it it will seem outlandish, disordered and silly.
-
Jolly
I asked for a definition of Brane because people often tend to 'name drop' on these fora yet they may not be sure what it means. Certainly, it isn't a commonly understood idea.
Also the notion of 'collision' in the context of universes, if it's not qualified by some detailed explanation, conjures up a very 'conventional' picture of big objects bashing into each other.
If you want to have a discussion which will entertain readers yet 'get somewhere' it is necessary to include a lot of caveats or people can get a very false idea of what is actually cutting edge.
I find that most people have enough trouble just understanding the true consequences of Newtons laws so getting ones head around the fringes of Cosmology is a tall order.
I was with you up to jolly, then it all went pear shaped [;D](hugs).
Err, I don't see the people getting wrong images as a problem, it should lead to questions and then generate answers and then maybe more questions. Surely old and young, wise or not, should be able to read these threads and gain from it. So even if there are simple models or images they still have a use, and a benefit.
That's pretty much why I didn't attempt to explain it. When it was explained to me by someone qualified to do so it seemed simple, beautiful and logical. If I try to explain it it will seem outlandish, disordered and silly.
Well that just silly, never be scared to jump on in, what you worried about?
-
If you want to get anywhere with Science - even in the outer reaches of it - you have to
1. Have some sort of common language with the people you're talking to.
2. Have a desire to get things as right as possible.
Science with no rigour at all isn't fun.
-
Well that just silly, never be scared to jump on in, what you worried about?
I wouldn't have done the science justice.
-
Well said.
I think Jolly wants a fantasy discussion and not a Scientific one.
-
Well said.
I think Jolly wants a fantasy discussion and not a Scientific one.
Reading this, Jolly was actually pointing out interesting facts and stating them when they hadn't been said. It's not fantasy as what he has said has been on national geographic and the discovery channels. He's just having his say.
Personally, I like to discuss this stuff over a few pints, or spliffs lol (not that I encourage people to become intoxicated) or when the conversation goes dead. Most people will just listen to these types of conversations without adding anything extra, or stating what opinion they have chosen to side with. So for Jolly to say what he thinks or state his thoughts that have been provoked shows he's awake and not a drone like so many empty headed people out there... But enough of the politics anyway...
The big bang theory is the most believable thing I've ever heard to describe how the universe was created! Also the thoughts of multiverses colliding to create the big bang seems abit deeper, but makes sense of how the big bang could come about from nothingness.
The theory that caboose (the topic starter) had, that he believes over the big bang is that the universe was pure energy and then what? No big bang because you don't believe in the big bang? So "something happened to create matter", then what did? Not a very descriptive theory! Why wouldn't you believe what is the most commonly believed theory and makes the most sense?
Some people believe god created everything, but then if god does exist and created everything...wouldn't he create the most perfect place to live in which isn't survival of the fittest? If god does exist, he created death murder hate fear and everything bad when he created everything so what does that say?
Or we could be living in the matrix and the other multiverses that created the big bang were themselves created on some kind of computer programme linked together by some kind of internet lol! Nah until I think or see a more believable theory, I'll believe what the majority of the most intelligent minds on the earth believe, the big bang theory!
-
Personally, I like to discuss this stuff over a few pints, or spliffs lol (not that I encourage people to become intoxicated) or when the conversation goes dead. Most people will just listen to these types of conversations without adding anything extra, or stating what opinion they have chosen to side with.
Fine - but that approach just tends to end up with idle conversation and does not make you any wiser. Frankly, I'm not too interested in what Scientific Opinions people may have if they are not based on anything which is basically solid.
I may feel a bit different after a few pints but, then, I shouldn't be allowed to drive, vote or gamble in that state either.
-
BenV, Sophiecentaur
Silence doesn't justify anything!
Fine - but that approach just tends to end up with idle conversation and does not make you any wiser.
So you'll only open your mouth to say something that isn't idle?
Oh and the only reason why that conversation doesn't make you wiser, is because in the morning after you have removed the traffic cones and 'for sale' signs from your bed, you can't remember a dam thing discussed.
Frankly, I'm not too interested in what Scientific Opinions people may have if they are not based on anything which is basically solid.
I still miss your point, I mean your issue was with, simple images, simple or not, there base was ok.
-
You are entitled to have any opinions you choose to have and to hold forth on them. But don't expect them to have the weight behind them that established Science has. Can you really think that the dilettante approach is as worthwhile as the dedicated approach?
Could you guarantee to design a working computer with your sketchy ideas of Science?
A simple image may or may not be a valid one. If it is simple and it is valid then it is brilliant - otherwise it is flawed.
-
You are entitled to have any opinions you choose to have and to hold forth on them. But don't expect them to have the weight behind them that established Science has. Can you really think that the dilettante approach is as worthwhile as the dedicated approach?
Could you guarantee to design a working computer with your sketchy ideas of Science?
A simple image may or may not be a valid one. If it is simple and it is valid then it is brilliant - otherwise it is flawed.
Look all I think, myself and others have been getting at is this: many people use this site, the wise and not so wise, it is a learning site, mainly for people to learn and enquire.
Also If they want to people who completely understand a subject, can and do talk about it, but generally it's for students, So if you are going to tell people they should only post if what they post is, Proven or sound in the scientific sense of the word, then you are doing them and this site a dis-service.
If that happened this site would be going no where, people post things and then realise they are wrong, that is called learning, there is nothing wrong with doing that, Besides when it comes to science there are lots of people(scientists) who completely disagree with one another and do not except each others, founding beliefs etc no matter how established there are or not.
In the end if we all knew everything, would there be any need for this site, other than for social reasons?
I could go on, but I have to go, if you want I will expand on this tomorrow.
-
You make some fair comments and I agree about the place of speculation. However, when people jump in with both feet and hold forth about topics with little or no knowledge or logic, it is not surprising when someone raises objections. Science is, essentially, a humble discipline. A good Scientist is prepared to learn first. After some time a good scientist may be able able to justify an opinion.
Who would expect to play in a Premiership Football Match? We all accept limitations in some directions. Why not in Science. That doesn't mean that we can't enjoy finding stuff out. It is wise to take care before launching into b/s mode.
-
You make some fair comments and I agree about the place of speculation. However, when people jump in with both feet and hold forth about topics with little or no knowledge or logic, it is not surprising when someone raises objections.
Quite and any student watching will read them.
Science is, essentially, a humble discipline. A good Scientist is prepared to learn first. After some time a good scientist may be able able to justify an opinion.
Who would expect to play in a Premiership Football Match? We all accept limitations in some directions. Why not in Science. That doesn't mean that we can't enjoy finding stuff out. It is wise to take care before launching into b/s mode.
I hope you understand:
You are completely correct, I apologise irrevocable. It was silly of me to have even considered for one moment, that I could compare or compete with such a superior mind as you own.
I humbly ask to return to the topic and have provided videos to do so.
They are a bit Hollywood but OK:
Good old horizon; parallel universes 1-5 follow the links part one below:
P.S The whole other universes in which it's similar to here, I have trouble with. To me they are different, doesn't to me mean they could'nt hold life etc.
-
The Big Bang Theory is good and all but it goes COMPLETELY against all laws of physics. The law of conservation of matter and energy states that matter and energy cannot be either created or destroyed only converted into each other.
so how does this theory work? i also do not believe that the theory Einstein favored is true either. (he favored a continuous universe. one with no end and no beginning).
So what theory could possibly work.
the only other one i can think of is that before the Universe was pure energy and something happened to that energy to create matter. but i see holes in this as well such as what caused this to occur and where did that energy come from. so can somebody help?
Hey there, hope you see the problem, We can give an answer to the question, it just changes the reality of everything to do so.
But atleast M-theory gives an answer.
-
[quote[It was silly of me to have even considered for one moment, that I could compare or compete with such a superior mind as you own.[/quote]
I don't ask you to apologise. I only suggest that you take note of what the Great Scientists have had to say about things and to consider your views in the light of it.
One piece of real learning is worth hours and hours of directionless speculation.
If people want to discuss Science then they should do just that. Terry Pratchett does the other thing extremely well and his version happens to be entertaining, too.
-
HUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM;
It was silly of me to have even considered for one moment, that I could compare or compete with such a superior mind as you own.
I don't ask you to apologise. I only suggest that you take note of what the Great Scientists have had to say about things and to consider your views in the light of it.
We'll when one shows up, I will [:)], That's a joke.
You clearly didn't understand me.
One piece of real learning is worth hours and hours of directionless speculation.
If people want to discuss Science then they should do just that. Terry Pratchett does the other thing extremely well and his version happens to be entertaining, too.
Thankyou. You are correct. I apologise for apologising.
Can we get back to the big bang theory now?
-
Agreed.
From now back until 'just after' the Big Bang we have pretty good evidence. It's the best we can do at the moment. We can visualise back to then using more or less conventional ideas and models.
Before and during the BB is much much harder. You just can't consider aned 'earlier time' because the BB is a backward limit on time as we experience it.
To look at the causes of or precoursers to the BB you have to look outside the space time we know and love. String theory introduces these other dimensions for a unifying model for the fundamental particles and forces.
This is really way out stuff and can't be verified without access to much higher energy levels than we have yet.
CERN may have the tools.
IF string theory can be verified as better than a good intellectually satisfying idea then the same ideas can take you outside space time and allow an explanation for the BB too.
It is all very speculative, remember. But the speculation is being made by some pretty impressive minds.
-
Agreed.
From now back until 'just after' the Big Bang we have pretty good evidence. It's the best we can do at the moment. We can visualise back to then using more or less conventional ideas and models.
Before and during the BB is much much harder. You just can't consider aned 'earlier time' because the BB is a backward limit on time as we experience it.
To look at the causes of or precoursers to the BB you have to look outside the space time we know and love.
String theory gives time one dimension. Under what you are suggesting there, are you not giving time an extra dimension?
-
No. I hadn't thought of it that way. Why do you say it would be necessary?
-
No. I hadn't thought of it that way. Why do you say it would be necessary?
Well it's just if you say time before the big bang, is different to the time afterwards. Then you are sort of making a time 1 and time 2.
I don't think M-Theorist do this, they see it as one long time dimension sort of like: BC and AD, I suppose would fit as an analogy.
So it's BBB and ABB but time, as a dimension, stays the same.
-
You misunderstand. There is no need for a time before the BB. 'Before the BB' is just not part of the set Time.
The way we happen to appreciate time doesn't have to govern all the hows and whys about time. Think outside the box.
-
jolly
Well it's just if you say time before the big bang, is different to the time afterwards. Then you are sort of making a time 1 and time 2.
Uh? I am not talking about a time 'before' the BB because it doesn't need to exist.
You have to stop thinking that way.
If you have a tape measure, you don't demand that there should be a negative scale on it, do you? You don't demand another tape for measuring things in the other direction.
For a Scalar quantity we are happy enough not to have negatives so WHY do you insist on negatives for Time? And it's no good saying "It makes sense to"!!!!
-
Big bang is wrong. Has been and always will be.
quarks, the smallest discernable form of matter, are made of energy. Energy has been around for as long as the universes and galaxies have. Energy forms quarks in different ways, forming flavors. flavors with different spins form protons, electrons, and neutrons. they form atoms. atoms bond and, eventually, form ammino acids. they form single-celled organisms. those organisms evolve into people, plants, fungus, monera and protista.
it's as simple as that. the worlds formed from energy. stuff happens.
-
Big bang is wrong. Has been and always will be.
And who told you that? Or did you calculate it from all the facts you could glean?
-
OH !! guys to end my little contribution to this thread.
"I don't know for sure, nobody does."
-
I salute you for your honesty
OH !! guys to end my little contribution to this thread.
"I don't know for sure, nobody does."