0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Big Bang Theory is good and all but it goes COMPLETELY against all laws of physics.
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?
So we might as well stop making any effort with Science, then?
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.
Quote from: sophiecentaur on 26/05/2008 20:52:29Perhaps 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).
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.
QuoteOn 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!
JollyI 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.
Well that just silly, never be scared to jump on in, what you worried about?
Well said.I think Jolly wants a fantasy discussion and not a Scientific one.
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.
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 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.
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?
QuoteIt 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Big bang is wrong. Has been and always will be.
OH !! guys to end my little contribution to this thread."I don't know for sure, nobody does."