The Big Bang Theory (Page 2)

CoIin: It's the "I don't know" mentality that makes us go seek. If you "know", there is no need to.

Daddio35: The currently most supported theory is that a primordial pre-big bang existed and generated particles called inflatons which unleashed the big bang once they had generated enough heat.

The force was gravitational push rather than pull which they claim only happens at the sort of heat that the big bang causes. The uneven distribution of the universe in this theory is caused by the interior shape in the original inflaton field. So really it wasn't so much of a bang as more a expansion of something very small becoming very big. A minute particle or particle field became something the size of a galaxy in seconds and the heat caused gravity to give everything its push outwards.

Of course, it doesnt answer the question, what caused the primordial space that created the inflatons? At least this is what Brian Greens most recent book says.

Point5andahalf: And I think the theory suggests that the universe will end up diffused back into that primordial pre-big bang state.
Starting the process again.

I still wonder why it is assumed to be one moment in history when this inflation happened.
As said above, "So really it wasn't so much of a bang as more a expansion of something very small becoming very big."

This could be a continual process happening as we speak, not just one event some time in the distant past.
... possibly. I'm just dreaming.

Yan26: Point 5 - According to the current theory . There was a big bang. After some time ( millions of years) things started cooling off and planets and stuff got formed. If the process was continuous it means energy is continuously being pumped into the universe. This would not allow any cooling down to take place hence prevent formation of planets.

Also scientists have found background radiation at the center of the universe which fits in with the big bang model in which there was only one bang.

According to current evidence/knowledge/theory it would not be possible for a continuous process like you say.

oh_good_laughs: Well said Yan, it's nice to see people question the ideas labeled 'Scientific Theory'. As it IS an idea.

Daddio35: >> And I think the theory suggests that the universe will end up diffused back into that primordial pre-big bang state.
Starting the process again.

I don't think so, I was just commenting really because I finished reading 'The fabric of the cosmos' a few weeks ago and its sort of fresh. Once the initial bang happened apparently the universe cooled to the point where gravity no longer has a push and became the extremely weak pulling force that we see today. The motion we see today, that being the outwardly moving objects in space will not fall back into the centre unless some new unforeseen force appears as gravity is too week to do this.

Well I don't know, and I don't believe it myself really, but that appears to be the most likely candidate presented by science, right now that is.

IMO this is like watching the last 10 seconds of a train travelling and assuming that an hour ago it was still travelling in the same direction at the same speed.

XFixYourBrainX: I heard the TV series is interesting, the tv series was even mentioned on an episode of Family Guy.

StuckInTheSixties: Risen says:

"it's nice to see people question the ideas labeled 'Scientific Theory'. As it IS an idea."

True. A "scientific theory" is an idea. So is a "guess" or a "hunch" or a "fable" or a "myth" or a "dogma."

But a scientific theory is different than those other kinds of ideas. It's based on objective, tangible evidence.

Your (obvious) attempt to equate scientific theory with other types of ideas is typical of your religion-driven petulant insistence on misusing the term "theory," in this case egregiously so, as you actually included the word "scientific."

Point5andahalf: I know gravity will not pull the universe back together. I read that the universe will diffuse into nothingness, but it's not really nothingness, it still has dark energy or something.
A similar state as our universe was in before the big bang.
It might be possible that new universes could form again after ours has dissolved into the void.
It's an idea I heard.
*******-*******-*******-------
Yan, >> scientists have found background radiation at the center of the universe which fits in with the big bang model in which there was only one bang.<<

The problem with observing the background radiation, is it's impossible to see beyond it. I don't think the universe has a centre according to that model, since it is assumes the universe is homogenous and isotropic.
I'm just speculating.

Yan26: When I said center of the universe I meant :
All the galaxies are seen moving in a trajectory. If they are brought back along this trajectory they are found to co-incide( This is my understanding. It can be wrong) . I referred to this point as the center of the universe. It may not be the geographical center.
I did not understand why you got the cosmological principle ("that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic"-Wikepedia) into this? could you elaborate?

StuckInTheSixties: Point5 says:
"I know gravity will not pull the universe back together. I read that the universe will diffuse into nothingness, but it's not really nothingness, it still has dark energy or something."

My understanding of this is a bit different, I think. As I understand it, the constantly expanding universe won't "diffuse into nothingness." That wording seems to imply that all matter would be rendered down to the smallest basic particles possible.

My understanding is that there will certainly be objects, or systems, whatever, that will continue to be "held together" (so to speak), by gravity, with enough gravitational attraction, or enough absence of dark energy, to remain "held together" as everything flies off into the vast reaches of the universe and away from everything else. I would imagine objects, like asteroids, comets, etc. would remain intact, and perhaps even new objects would continue to coalesce from particles close enough together for gravity to mutually attract them. Perhaps even solar systems might remain intact (for the life of the star, at least). But the distances between stars and other objects will increase to the degree that if one was on a hypothetical planet, staring into the hypothetical night sky, the hypothetical person would see no other stars, only darkness (telescope or not).

If this notion is incorrect, perhaps someone could provide reference.

Point5andahalf: I forget where I heard that SITS, was utube I think. This wiki article says something about it. (heat death and the "Big Rip"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
This theory suggests that only gravitationally bound systems, such as galaxies, would remain together, and they too would be subject to heat death, as the Universe expands and cools. Other explanations of dark energy—so-called phantom energy theories—suggest that ultimately galaxy clusters, stars, planets, atoms, nuclei and matter itself will be torn apart by the ever-increasing expansion in a so-called Big Rip.

StuckInTheSixties: Regardless of which (if any) of those destinies is the accurate one, it doesn't really look like much of a happy ending.

Too bad the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory fell through. Can't help admire the elegance of it, even if it's not actually gonna happen.

Point5andahalf: Yeh, it's gonna get cool in the future...
The distant future.
Good to see you back dude, btw.

Point5andahalf: Yan, (I missed your question yesterday)
The assumption is the universe is the same everywhere, regardless of where an observer might be. ie. observations/calculations from our vantage point in our solar system/galaxy would be the same from anywhere throughout the universe.
Everything in the universe is the same age and at the same stage of development according to the accepted model. In real time that is, as opposed to observations made through telescopes, which is effectively in delay, limited by the speed of light.
ps. I meant to say it is impossible to see beyond our cosmic horizon in my other post.
At least that's how I understand it.
Anyway, I'll leave it to the experts to figure it out.
They're working on it.
It doesn't really matter one way the other. It's just a curiosity.

Geoff: The concept that the universe will end up as a lukewarm atomic 'soup' (perfectly distributed cloud of elementary particles) is the logical consequence of entropy.

This itself is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. The whole concept of entropy is one that leaves me somewhat troubled, but I can't find flaws in the reasoning.

However, be careful looking into the research behind all of this, there are some rather bizarre hypotheses being posted by people who seem bound and determined to tie thermodynamics and information theory together.

aajkk: Lipton I'd rather people would say I don't know-then well that's a really good question-and ramble on about nothing

neverland9: noooo big bang allah created all universe

miss gege: sorry thought you were talking about the TV show....continue

11Xbadalice: There is something wrong with the "Big Bang Theory." I can't put my finger on it. Micho Kaku, has sugested that a black hole is the inverse of a "Big Bang." If this is the case, then the Universe, or Multiverse would be Infinite. Any comments? Check this Theory out. Suppose that the Universe is not actually expanding, but being compressed inside a black hole, Everything shrinking equeally, as more Space and matter are being drawn into our "Black Hole Universe" All being equealized, as matter is lost from our compressed universe into the many blackholes we can observe ect. I'm not a scientist, however fun stuff to think about.

11Xbadalice: You can't have "Nothing" without something to put it in. A location for it. What would Infinite matter without infinite space look like? Infinite matter, in infinite space = the Multiverse. There will always be more beyond every event horizion.

11Xbadalice: The sum of Zero and Infinity are equivilant, debate.

Massivepanic: It!s stupid, no one can prove it. It just a theory.

spankdmonkey: Some very interesting comments ,among it all .and generally most believe the big bang theory .Me included as someone else stated generally the evidence points that way ..And lets be honest what we have learnt as humans is to think to accept and not to accept

.It is upto the individual .What they want to believe .

.I think the whole big bang theory sounds okay but there is one or two things that don"t add up .I could write a book on it from how it began to why it happened and how it all came about ,It is a very long story though

.There is one thing i did not see people mention and it is one of the most important and feasible reasons it happened and that is chemistry .

Its all about chemistry its all about one substance reacting with another substance continuously ,and because matter or substance cannot be destroyed it can only be changed it attracted other substance along the way .Will get to that part later though .gotta go get my kid from sport laters .people

spankdmonkey: I dont think the whole universe started from the big bang theory ,But i think the big bang did happen ,No physicist can explain any one way it all happened ,which leads me to the conclussion that it didnt happen one way but by a number of ways ,there is no one theory that can explain the universe ,There is also the string theory that most physicist have been working on for some years now ,The string theory is basically to do with invisable string certain lengths vibrating through space because of these vibrations dust was formed on them matter was formed because of it .this matter although at first miniscule clung to other matter building up over millions of years .Getting to certain amounts of weight then falling through space gaining speed as it went causing a vaccum causing other particles of matter to become hot burning up while travelling through the space attracting each other till they become bigger and bigger and bigger creating a huge sun the heat was intense at thousands of degrees celsius burning up this matter causing the heat and waves smoke ,steam,radiation all being disperssed through space changing its composition because of the heat which is where energy comes into it to be pushed out throughout the universe So then we had M=matter Heat =energy also because of this matter being so hot and so huge that it lit up the space in each universe like a light globe thus giving the space matter heat energy and light .
Till one day there was this biggest explosion known as the big bang and this big ball of heat and matter and light went flying in all directions throughout space rocks and chunks the size of planets spinning at unbelievable speed caussing vaccums some spun that fast that it stayed where it was spinning red hot other matter sped on cooling down over millions of miles a hour changing its chemical make up as it cooled( metals irons )minerals were formed ,Substance ,compounds Gravitational waves were formed creating gravity