MidnightFox Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Ive been thinking a lot. I dont think any of the theories work. The Big Bang Theory says that the universe just suddenly is created by one atom and time and space was not created. The Steady State theory says that it has been expanding. The other one( that elctro thingy) says that it is made from electricity and magnetism or something. Any1 got a clue how the universe began because i dont agree with any of these theories!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 The Big Bang theory, actually, leaves out the bang. It doesn't try to explain how the universe actually came to be. And you'll have to explain to us why you don't think they work. Many other people think they do work, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidnightFox Posted November 16, 2006 Author Share Posted November 16, 2006 Do you think that the universe just began with a single explosion and in a bout a trillionth of a second, the universe is almost like 100000000000000000000000000000000 light years or something. And it all began with a single atom?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 That's not what big bang theory says. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 The Big Bang Theory says that the universe just suddenly is created by one atom and time and space was not created. In the Big Bang the energy density would have prevented any matter from existing, let a lone an atom. When you break time down to around the Planck Time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units ), past and future have less meaning and reality than they do in macro scale event. What this means is that effect can come before the cause. If applied to the beginning of the universe, this means the physics of this universe could have caused it's self to come into existence. QM does allow for this. If you also apply the Uncertainty principle to this period, then it means that we are so accurate about the time (a single Planck Time) that we are uncertain about the energy. There would have been enough energy in a single spot to therefore create our universe. It didn't come from an Atom, because an atom, in comparison to size, would have been absolutely huge. The universe did not so much as explode, as expand. From what we know of QM, this amount of energy in 1 place would have created an enormous amount of pressure. This pressure is not like the air pressure in a balloon, but instead would go into making space and time (creating them if you will). This creation of space causes larger distances and the universe expands and time starts to occur. As there is more space for this energy to exist in, it becomes more and more dispersed and the universe cools. Today it would have cooled to 3 degrees above absolute 0 (0 Kelvin) and this is backed up by measurements (the Microwave Background Radiation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidnightFox Posted November 17, 2006 Author Share Posted November 17, 2006 Coudnt there be 2 galaxies that collided and made a huge bang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 galaxies collide all the time, the milky way is on a collision course (with andromida?) at the moment, when they colide there will not be a new universe. What do you dislike about the big ban theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidnightFox Posted November 17, 2006 Author Share Posted November 17, 2006 I just cant accept it. So the universe was created in a bang and time and space wasnt created? There is this atom called the um...... Pereviul atom or something (forgot the name) and it expanded for over 15 trillion years? There must be another way though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 It wasn't a single atom. It was an incredibly dense blob of subatomic particles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidnightFox Posted November 17, 2006 Author Share Posted November 17, 2006 Am i reading the wrong books? But is there another way? Could there have been already past universes? Could the universe be just a cycle that has been going on for some time now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Am i reading the wrong books? Sound like it But is there another way? None are anywhere near as commonly accepted, or anywhere near having anything like as much evidence for them Could there have been already past universes? There could but we have no way of finding out that being one of the definitions of a universe is that it's everything. Could the universe be just a cycle that has been going on for some time now? Yes ,lots of people thing it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Coudnt there be 2 galaxies that collided and made a huge bang? Galaxies exist inside the universe, so they couldn't collide and create the universe as then they would have had to have existed outside/before the universe. Also there are billions and billions of galaxies in the universe and, as far as we know, there is just 1 universe. There is evidence within out own galaxy that it has had both collisions and several near misses. The Large and Small Magellanic Clouds are actually 2 small galaxies that have had a near miss with out own. This miss was so close that stars and gas from both have been drawn out in a line between them (so in effect they clipped us). Some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Clouds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Stream http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Bridge There is this atom called the um...... Pereviul atom or something (forgot the name) and it expanded for over 15 trillion years?\If that is from the books you are reading, then yes you are reading the wrong books. Also I think the word you are looking for is Primordial (at http://www.Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primordial ). Also scientist place the age of the universe to between 15 to 20 million years old (it also could be a little more or a little less). A trillion is a thousand million, far in excess of the estimated age. So if that number came form the book, then they are out by a factor of 10^3 (1000). Could there have been already past universes? Could the universe be just a cycle that has been going on for some time now? Technically, Universe is singular, so that can be only 1 universe by definition. If there were past "universes", then they would have just been different phases of our own universe. So, yes, some theories predict that there were previous phases of our universe where matter might have been in different configurations or even that the laws of physics were different from what they are in our phase. However these theories are virtually untestable, as to avoid the results of thermodynamics and entropy, all information from 1 phase must be destroyed before entering the next phase and so no evidence of these past phases can ever be detected. But the understanding we have about the law of physics do not seem to allow for this (but as all science, it is open for evidence that disproves it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragib Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Umm Edtharan, You seem to have made a few silly mistakes. First, I think your ment to universe is 15-20 BILLION years, not million, and more accuractly its about 13.7 billion. A trillion is a thousand BILLION not 1000 million. And Im almost certain he meant primeval atom, thats the way one of the first people to speak of the big band theory described it, and its been quoted many writings ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_Jim* Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Do you think that the universe just began with a single explosion and in a bout a trillionth of a second, the universe is almost like 100000000000000000000000000000000 light years or something. And it all began with a single atom?! I'm prettier sure that the current figure for the size of the universe is 156,000,000,000 light years across, still quite a growth spurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 midnight; personally i think the Universe has always been, about the same size and leave the possibilities for multiply universe open. the known universe (what is seen through telescopes and/or Hubble) is about 29 billion light years across. we see 14+ in each direction. few suggest that there is more beyond our mechanical sight. the Hubble update scheduled for next year, i think and a new system is planned for 2013 should provide additional evidence. my own guess would be this universe is nearer to 1/2 trillion light years than to 50. there are many thoughts on BBT. the originals from the 1927 to the 60's or so, do not resemble most of todays. expansion was an outgrowth and although both BBT and universal expansion are what is called "accepted theory", many do not agree. no "bang" is now considered and a mis-nomer. yes, some galaxy have been seen colliding, but maybe "all the time" is a little off. actually the Milky Way, our galaxy is in the process of absorbing a small dwarf galaxy now and another dwarf is on its way. spiral Andromeda, is well out there and we really don't know how close it may come to ours. remember its thought there are 2 billion and counting galaxy in our known universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 midnight; personally i think the Universe has always been, about the same size and leave the possibilities for multiply universe open. the known universe (what is seen through telescopes and/or Hubble) is about 29 billion light years across. we see 14+ in each direction. few suggest that there is more beyond our mechanical sight. the Hubble update scheduled for next year, i think and a new system is planned for 2013 should provide additional evidence. my own guess would be this universe is nearer to 1/2 trillion light years than to 50. there are many thoughts on BBT. the originals from the 1927 to the 60's or so, do not resemble most of todays. expansion was an outgrowth and although both BBT and universal expansion are what is called "accepted theory", many do not agree. no "bang" is now considered and a mis-nomer. yes, some galaxy have been seen colliding, but maybe "all the time" is a little off. actually the Milky Way, our galaxy is in the process of absorbing a small dwarf galaxy now and another dwarf is on its way. spiral Andromeda, is well out there and we really don't know how close it may come to ours. remember its thought there are 2 billion and counting galaxy in our known universe. The universe is infinite, they are colliding all the time. "The universe has always been the same size" what do you say about all the doppler shift evidence against this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragib Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 The Universe is infinite? Please explain? As to we 14+ billion light years in each direction, how is that possible when accurate reading state the age of the universe is approx 13.7 billion years? Does that mean we see the entire universe? The light couldn't have reached us in this time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 The Universe is infinite? Please explain? As to we 14+ billion light years in each direction, how is that possible when accurate reading state the age of the universe is approx 13.7 billion years? Does that mean we see the entire universe? The light couldn't have reached us in this time... Well the current belief I was told by my tutor (who is the lockyier professor of astrophysics, that's not some fool US professorship the term means something in the uk) is that the universe is for all intense and purposes, infinite, looping (under alot of debate) and closed. I also think I recall general relativity being the reason for at least 2 of them. So I'm not really in a position to cover the maths for it. There was some talk for a while that there may only be one galaxy and all our views of it might be continued loops around the "edge" but this has now been shown to not be the case. Well done, yes we cannot see all of the universe. One interesting thing about what we see is that it is further back through time. There is a limit to how far we can see though, the reionisation epoch, see: http://www.haystack.mit.edu/ast/science/epoch/pictures/reionexpl.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Umm Edtharan, You seem to have made a few silly mistakes. First, I think your ment to universe is 15-20 BILLION years, not million, and more accuractly its about 13.7 billion. A trillion is a thousand BILLION not 1000 million. :embarass: oops, The only excuse was that it was around 3am here (I couldn't sleep so I was browsing the forums at the time) :embarass: You are right, I meant billion, not million. I was too tired to remember the age properly and now that I am more awake, I do remember it being 13.7 billion (but the estimates do change occasionally). And yes a trillion is a 1000 billion not 1000 million. Again I was too tired to notice when I psted. Thanks for the corrections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyman Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 As to we 14+ billion light years in each direction, how is that possible when accurate reading state the age of the universe is approx 13.7 billion years? Does that mean we see the entire universe? The light couldn't have reached us in this time... The universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Light reaching us from the earliest known galaxies has been travelling, therefore, for more than 13 billion years. So one might assume that the radius of the universe is 13.7 billion light-years and that the whole shebang is double that, or 27.4 billion light-years wide. But the universe has been expanding ever since the beginning of time. All the distance covered by the light in the early universe gets increased by the expansion of the universe. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 The universe is infinite, they are colliding all the time. "The universe has always been the same size" what do you say about all the doppler shift evidence against this? my opinion is the universe is about the same size as it was 15 or 50 billion years ago. my opinion is based on need and there should be no need to expand. there is no little factory out there making matter and matter that is out there is in a constant mode of destruction and construction. the "known" universe is now near 30 billion light years across and i see no reason why it couldn't be many times the suggested 156. as to Mr. Edwin Hubble's, the Hubble's Space Telescope and the COBE's telescope observations and interpretations, i suggest they may be flawed. to start with everything in space is already moving at a very fast pace. our planet, our solar system, our galaxy and our little galaxy cluster are moving with a cum total. then you have distortion (visit an air port, watch a jet take off at dusk- the exhaust from a jet in the pink of the sunset will turn it back to blue sky) and with all the various forms of energy, debris dust and gases between these telescopes and that 15 billion year old light could easily be distorted. regardless of what the real universe is in size, its unlikely another (if some or many exist) is colliding or for reasons could collide. i have explained it like this...if you walked to the end of this universe and looked out into the next, then turn around and look at yours, they would appear near the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 The Universe is infinite? Please explain? As to we 14+ billion light years in each direction, how is that possible when accurate reading state the age of the universe is approx 13.7 billion years? Does that mean we see the entire universe? The light couldn't have reached us in this time... the known universe is what we can see and by various means determine distance. this is based on light speed and the light we see. as telescopes have progressed in technology we see further and they expect the Hubble update next year or the newer telescope scheduled for 2013, will provide additional lights. we see many things in space and by using a form of graduation of light (brightness to dimness) can get pretty close. when your talking billions, thats not as hard as you might think. no, few think thats the end of the universe. many opinions range to any limit you want to place on the idea. Even big bang theory (which camp i am not in) says space and time no doubt go further out and the theory will evolve to the final figure, if thats ever known. my personal opinion is we see so much of the same thing in all directions now that the same should be true at the limits seen. that is if you could look out from the most distant light and look back to us, then look on out into space and see basically the same, the limits would then be, the current 30 plus 30 in each direction or 90 billion total known universe. at some point some sign of a difference in a directions would indicate a limit. remember one light year is the time light can travel in one year at 186,000 miles per second. our sun light takes 8 light minutes to reach us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 spyman; you might check "radius" your version is close for "big bang" and this is accepted theory by many people in or out of science. this expanding part, likewise is connected to BBT and also generally accepted. however there are other viewpoints that should be considered. even those that have a different view from your, have some understanding what BBT is, needed to give argument opposed. my feeling on expansion, as stated are not necessarily in opposing to BBT. it may even be a possibility but in my opinion highly unlikely, without cause or need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 TBH over your personal opinion and the professional opinions of two amazing astrophysicists, one of which lead the first team to ever analyse a hubble deep field image, who is the UK representative for one of the detectors built by the ESA for the james webb, you know I think he may now an ickle bit about this... That's just my opinion of course... I wouldn't like to cast aspersions on your deep mathematical arguments against red shifting "go to an airport" who could possibly consider that to be incomplete? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now