Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Ron Hughes on 30/01/2010 18:05:18
-
The Big Bang has no before the Big Bang, no time, no matter, no nothing. Regardless of who you are, scientist, engineer, layman or preacher, it’s got to bother you. No explanation can be given other than the famous ,“ It was a Quantum event. “, colliding brane’s or dimensions. That’s kind of like having to leave a good movie before the end. Surely there are some ideas out there to explain the BB and fit one or more of the observations we see today. I’ll start with my own science fiction tale.
A few weeks ago there was a discussion that started talking about photons. I tried to think of ways to better understand the photon. A low energy collision between two molecules or atoms seemed like a good place to start since that is where infrared photons are created. I have previously discussed this here, http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=28159.msg295684#msg295684 . In a high energy collision at the instant just before the two atoms start to accelerate away from each other the energy density at the nearest point of contact should be enormous. Somewhat analogous to the Big Bang. Is it possible that a tiny Universe is created here, where clocks of this tiny Universe run trillions and trillions of times slower than our clocks? The expanding electric field would cause this tiny Universe to experience an accelerated expansion. This idea would suggest an infinite number of tiny Universes below the size of ours and an infinite number of larger Universes above the size of ours. Science fiction? Maybe not.
-
Dunno Ron. Anything (well a lot of things) is possible when described in words. The problem is trying to form a hypothesis that stands up to rigorous analysis for consistancy with observation and self-consistancy in both a qualitative and a quantitative way.
You'll have to do all the maths and write a paper.
I am not sure that the consequences of GR or QM bother me any more. They are often counter-intuitive but I put that down, not unreasonably, to my brain not being configured with the programming to need to have any built in subroutines to make these things easy.
-
I don't know how we could tie our observed rate of expansion to the micro-universe expansion created in the collision without some comparable time base between the two.
-
The problem would be that if you didn't see the new universe, some energy would go into it, and the stuff you saw wouldn't appear to satisfy conservation of energy. We've collided particles and atoms/molecules together at high speeds already and haven't seen this happen.
-
I don't think you grasp the significance of the difference in time scales. That tiny Universe would be born and die in something like 10^-15 seconds. We would never know of it's existence. All the energy that went into making it would come back out before we knew it was missing, trillions of it's years would have past.
-
Another thought, an observer in this tiny Universe would still measure C to have the same value that we do because his/her clock would be running so slow. This brings another strange thought. The speed of light is determined by how fast or slow an observer's clock runs with respect to the rest of the Universe?
-
There is a possible test for the idea. If the idea is true there should be electric field lines running through our Universe. They should show up as some type of division. Maybe only one or two in the visible Universe.
-
I think you're flogging a dead horse with the Big Bang, Ron. Yes it's interesting, but there's not much to go on, so it's difficult to come up with anything definitive or provable. Meanwhile there's other things you can think about where there is evidence, so you can come up with something, and that IMHO makes them more interesting.
-
farsight. If we can speculate about dark energy, dark matter and inflation to explain things we don't understand why in hell can't I speculate about something we are pretty sure of, the Universe had a beginning?
DiscoverDave. Dick was right but science has a habit of describing phenomena with mathematical representations that have nothing to do with the actual picture of what that phenomena looks like. Case in point, when I started thinking about what a photon actual looks like all I could see in my minds eye was two waves, one electric and one magnetic at ninety degrees to each other and that is not what a photograph of the photon would like.
I noticed while typing this post the tread had been moved to the new theories section. I wonder if I had been discussing dark energy, dark mater or inflation would it have been moved?
-
It's your personal new theory, so this is where it belongs. Is this a problem?
If it were a new theory discussing dark matter or dark energy then it would also belong here, as would a new theory about any science topic.
-
No problem. That is indeed fair.
-
We do this so that there is an area of the site that is more welcoming of speculation - Ideally, when people ask questions in the other sections of the site, they can get (to the best of our current knowledge) an accurate scientific answer. This doesn't always happen, but we would like to create an atmosphere where people can be reasonably trusting of the answers they get here (not enough to get full marks in their homework, of course, but enough to set them on the right track).
Hopefully, here in the new theories board people are more willing to share new ideas or those that run counter to the mainstream view. Of course, if it's nonsense (not that yours is - but some are) it will get short shrift!
-
Your logic is impeccable, thank you for your reply.
-
farsight. If we can speculate about dark energy, dark matter and inflation to explain things we don't understand why in hell can't I speculate about something we are pretty sure of, the Universe had a beginning?
You can Ron, but the big bang is a tough one. We've got evidence for the expansion of the universe, and it definitely looks like the big bang occurred 13.7 billion years back. But beyond that we very quickly move from evidence and deduction into the realm of pure speculation. I take pride in being very analytical and empirical, but when I look into the big bang I feel I haven't got enough to go on, so I kind of feel I'm not quite doing science any more. That's why I tend to avoid it.
-
I can understand that but the only way we can ever determine a cause is through our imagination,the only thing that makes us different from the other animals on this planet. If we answer every question about gravity, time, matter and space but we can't explain why the Universe came into being the rest is meaningless. The very first thing humans every wondered was why are we here. Einstein knew nothing about relativity when he was twelve years old but that did not stop him from asking questions that led to it.
-
Might I suggest that those that are interested and have access to get a hold of the book "The Endless Universe" by Paul J Steinhard and Neil Turok.
This is not a fringe science book but a scientific attempt to contrast the leading theories as known today. It is also not an attempt to force people to believe that the universe must be Cyclic or Inflationary but gives information on the leading theories and describes the current experiments that attempt to solve this.
about this book
Two world-renowned scientists present an audacious new vision of the cosmos that “steals the thunder from the Big Bang theory.” —Wall Street Journal
The Big Bang theory—widely regarded as the leading explanation for the origin of the universe—posits that space and time sprang into being about 14 billion years ago in a hot, expanding fireball of nearly infinite density. Over the last three decades the theory has been repeatedly revised to address such issues as how galaxies and stars first formed and why the expansion of the universe is speeding up today. Furthermore, an explanation has yet to be found for what caused the Big Bang in the first place.
In Endless Universe, Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok, both distinguished theoretical physicists, present a bold new cosmology. Steinhardt and Turok “contend that what we think of as the moment of creation was simply part of an infinite cycle of titanic collisions between our universe and a parallel world” (Discover). They recount the remarkable developments in astronomy, particle physics, and superstring theory that form the basis for their groundbreaking “Cyclic Universe” theory. According to this theory, the Big Bang was not the beginning of time but the bridge to a past filled with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each accompanied by the creation of new matter and the formation of new galaxies, stars, and planets.
Endless Universe provides answers to longstanding problems with the Big Bang model, while offering a provocative new view of both the past and the future of the cosmos. It is a “theory that could solve the cosmic mystery” (USA Today).
-
USA TODAY?
Then it must be true :)