Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Kuere on 03/02/2015 20:35:11
-
First off i want to say that I'm still in middle school, so being entirely and accurately up-to-date with scientific knowledge isn't always a concern. The page for more information the the Hadron Collider is here http://home.web.cern.ch/topics/large-hadron-collider. Then to get a better understanding of my theory you should also check out this link for information on the Big Bang Theory http://www.big-bang-theory.com/. Once you read, or you think you know enough, I'd say read the rest of this.
To start, I'm gonna say something that has to do with both links and I'll narrow it down to the point so minimum confusion occurs. The Big Bang theory is just that, a big bang that caused our universe to be created. The idea is that two particles collided causing a explosion and making the universe expand rapidly and over billions of years, here we are today! The Hadron Collider is a machine that causes particle beams such as electrons and protons to, as it's name implies, collide. This is where my theory begins. What if these particles that are colliding are doing a lot more? What if just maybe every time they collide a new "mini"verse is made? Now people will criticize this and probably send me bad emails but consider it, think about it, and at least give it a shot.
(More info will be given to those interested in the Theory.)
-BW
-
Welcome to the forum!
The Big Bang theory is just that, a big bang that caused our universe to be created.
Didn't you read the link that you yourself provided above? It says
Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.
...
So, according to the information you yourself provided, you're wrong.
The idea is that two particles collided causing a explosion and making the universe expand rapidly and over billions of years, here we are today!
That too is incorrect. It assumes that there was space in which the two particles could move in order to collide with each other. Your link above states
According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.
Besides, if there were two particles before this big bang you mention then there was already a universe for them to exist in so you're not talking about the big bang theory.
The Hadron Collider is a machine that causes particle beams such as electrons and protons to, as it's name implies, collide. This is where my theory begins. What if these particles that are colliding are doing a lot more? What if just maybe every time they collide a new "mini"verse is made? Now people will criticize this and probably send me bad emails but consider it, think about it, and at least give it a shot.
"What if" questions don't really have a solid foundation in any branch of science. I could sit here all day long asking "what if?" and I'd get nowhere.
(More info will be given to those interested in the Theory.)
-BW
This isn't a theory at all but mere speculation. I can't speak for others but being a physicist I know the reasons why your speculation is wrong. I'd like to note that you haven't given one reason why it should be correct.
I recommend hitting the books my friend. and first learn what a theory is. Before that I recommend learning the basics of physics starting with the following
Concepts of Modern Physics: The Haifa Lectures by Mendel Sachs (http://bookzz.org/book/573981/52032f)
What is Science? - The following statement was originally drafted by the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) of the American Physical Society, in an attempt to meet the perceived need for a very short statement that would differentiate science from pseudoscience. From the American Journal of Physics, 67 (8).
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/what_is_science.pdf
Philosophy and Logic of Physical Theory by Fritz Rohrlich
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/philosophy_physics.pdf
-
ouch PMB that would have hurt [;D] still it's in the best interests of the younger ones that they understand the truth.
-
It is a sign of high respect for the victim when PMB does this. Straight to the point he goes in the assumption that he's dealing with someone reasonably robust and who's keen to put right any faults in their model of reality. There's some recommended reading in there too which makes clear his intention to be constructive rather than destructive.
-
ouch PMB that would have hurt [;D] still it's in the best interests of the younger ones that they understand the truth.
What do you mean "would have" hurt? That's actually a two part question. (1) What's with the "would have"? and (2) why "hurt"?
It is a sign of high respect for the victim when PMB does this. Straight to the point he goes in the assumption that he's dealing with someone reasonably robust and who's keen to put right any faults in their model of reality. There's some recommended reading in there too which makes clear his intention to be constructive rather than destructive.
I am honored good sir. My thanks for the kind words. :)
I respect everyone who's asking questions about physics or making an attempt to explore an idea. It's unfortunate in this case because the OP doesn't understand the Big-Bang theory. A common misconception in the Big-Bang theory is that there is no event in the theory which can be though of as a being such an event/explosion etc. Peebles explains this very nicely:
From Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles, page 6
The familiar name of this picture, the "big bang" cosmological model, is unfortunate because it suggests we are identifying an event that triggered the expansion of the universe, and it may also suggest an event was an explosion localized in space. Both are wrong. The universe we observe is inferred to be close to homogeneous, with no evidence for a preferred center that might have been the site of an explosion. The standard cosmological picture deals with the universe as it is now and as we can trace its evolution back in time through an interlocking network of observation and theory. We have evidence from the theory of the origin of the light elements that the standard model successfully describes the evolution back to a time when the mean distance between conserved particles was some ten orders of magnitude smaller than it is now. It is found that still earlier epochs left evidence that can be analyzed and used to test our ideas, then that may be incorporated in the standard model or some extension of it. If there were an instant, at a "big bang," when our universe started expanding, it is not in the cosmology as now accepted, because no one has thought of a way to adduce objective physical evidence that such an event really happened.
One of the things that confuse most layman and amateurs is the structure of space of the entire universe. The term "curved" is used to describe it, a curved borrowed from geometry. The term as it is used in geometry usually describes the nature of a physical or mathematical 2-d surface. When its applied to 3-d space its used to describe 3-d space by analogy. The way it does this is to use what's called "geodesics" which are a certain kind of curve. In the absence of all gravitational effects, the spatial portion of a geodesic is a straight line in 3-dimensional space. The line goes heads out in one direction but never comes back to where it started. However in a "curved" space the spatial portion of the geodesics comes back to where it started. We can use a spherical surface as an analogy. One can easily see that if one is walking on the surface of a sphere (such as the Earth) and keeps going in the straightest possible line it will come back to where it started. That's why a closed universe is described using a balloon as an analogy.
Since there is no "center" of the surface of a balloon there is also no center to the physical universe.