Bjossi on 29/3/2006 at 20:22
Ah, now I understand. We are talking about two different theories. I´m thinking of a certain point where all the matter was inside and started from there to expand while the theory you are speaking of, that the Big Bang occured everywhere.
Para?noid on 29/3/2006 at 21:20
Both are the same thing. It's a <i>matter</i> of density, which is infinite at the point of a singularity. (See what I did there). The Big Bang is everywhere because there has been no loss of energy since it was a single, dense point- it's just been rearranged in a larger space.
Agent Monkeysee on 29/3/2006 at 21:44
Quote Posted by Bjossi
Ah, now I understand. We are talking about two different theories. I´m thinking of a certain point where all the matter was inside and started from there to expand while the theory you are speaking of, that the Big Bang occured everywhere.
No offense but your theory doesn't exist anywhere but your own head.
RocketMan on 29/3/2006 at 23:23
Its pointless to discuss the singularity that spawned the big bang for several reasons. The notion of space and time can only have meaning within the boundaries of the universe. Since a singularity has no boundaries, time and space do not exist and there is nothing that can be known about the characteristics of this point of infinite density. As to its origins.....completely beyond the scope of our intellects. The only way we can discuss origins is if you believe something came before it. The multiverse idea permits this perpetual universe notion and as such you can discuss quantum uncertainty and how it could have enabled the inflation that birthed our universe.
Bjossi on 30/3/2006 at 00:23
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
No offense but your theory doesn't exist anywhere but your own head.
You can find anything on the internet, maybe I just read an article made by a moron. ;)
Agent Monkeysee on 30/3/2006 at 01:18
Quote Posted by Bjossi
You can find anything on the internet, maybe I just read an article made by a moron. ;)
It's not a theory held by anyone in the scientific establishment, I can tell you that.
demagogue on 30/3/2006 at 02:07
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
The theory you're talking about is called Inflation [...]. I don't know how in vogue the theory is these days.
Interesting you should mention this. Just 2 days ago inflation theory got a BIG boost. I forgot the name of the project just now; the one analyzing background radiation, and they released their latest analysis a few days ago (after 6 years). It seems the background radiation is polarized in the way you'd expect with inflation -- the universe exploding from "singular" to cosmic size in less than a second -- something to do with earlier light being polarized differently to later (a few 10s millions years later) light after stars formed, which is supposed to mean the universe was already big at a very early time. I don't have the article here so I don't want to muck up the explanation. You can look it up.
Last year I studied General Relativity on my own for relativity's 100th birthday. I have to say these sorts of articles become so much more intelligible as you get to know the math and geometry behind it all. So much better than fucking quantum theory...
Bjossi on 30/3/2006 at 02:18
That sounds alike the article I read long time ago.
But I doubt mankind will ever get the final answer to this question though, maybe after thousands of years at least.
RocketMan on 30/3/2006 at 02:19
Quantum theory may be deeply disturbing (it is for me) but it is a highly effective and predictive tool. Plus there's a lot of super cool things that come out of it. Solar fusion, quantum tunneling, superfluids, super conductivity, zero point energy, entanglement.....some crazy shit. Personally I like relativity because of the implications towards time travel and I like black holes for the same reason but quantum mechanics i think is more widely applicable to just about everything.
When I had more time I used to be a black hole fanatic....i read everything I could about them....never had I seen a single entity, so devoid of structure, that was simultaneously a demonstration of so many strange phenomena. Just falling into a black hole would educate you in more than half a dozen different areas of physics.
Bjossi on 30/3/2006 at 02:31
That is very true, but the problem is getting close to a black hole without getting sucked to the center and get crushed...
I became very interested in black holes after seeing the documentary BBC made about them. They are faschinating, the mass compared to size and the idea that light itself can´t escape, etc.
