The Speck

[36grit]

Scientist describe the big bang theory as starting out a mere speck of near infinite density. A very poetic statement but not very scientific. Within an infintie scale everyting is realtive. Exactly what are they saying? At some point within an infinite scale, a neutron star is no more dense than bubble wrap. It's all matter of relative perspective.

They describe a universe that started off smaller than the head of a pin, and expanded to it's present size and it is still expanding. Within an infinite scale of size, it is still smaller than the head of a pin. It's all a matter of relative perspective.

Scientist say that outside of the speck, nothing existed. No space, no time, no mass, no distance, just pure and absolute nothing. It would stand to reason that if nothing existed on the other side of the speck then, than nothing exists on the other side of the speck that we are today. If nothing exists on the other side, than one might say that math and statistical probability also cannot exist, because that would be something. Therefore it would be impossible for science to suggest that , "it is a statistical probability that the universe will expand tommorrow".

To say that we are expanding into an infinite or finite nothing, would be to describe nothing as something. According this (insane) train of thought, there can be no such thing as nothing. Nothing is at the very least statistical probability. Is'nt this just a mathamatical means of predicting future events?

According to the reasoning above one must conclude that we are not and did not expand into nothing, but that we are and have always been expanding into the litteral and physical future. Or perhaps grape jelly heavily laden with heavy metal rock and roll, or I don't know. But expanding into the future seems to make sense.

Mathamatically nothing is equal to zero. Anything times zero is always zero. So if we are expanding into nothing than we would be nothing. Those who believe that we are something must search for a better understanding.

If the future can be described as infinite distance, than the sequence of events that led to the point of "unfolding" or "creation", or "the expansion" of mass existed then. Than it probably exists now. The scientific community, and most people, acknowledge that the universe is expanding. Why do they believe that this only pertains to space and distance and not mass? If the universe is expanding, why exclude it's mass content? It's like, a jet that flew over the head of a child who experiences a sonic boom. He is to young to understnd that the wave is continuous and relative to the position of the jet.

[CaptainPanic]

I'm no expert... But I believe that your first paragraph at least is quite right.

 

Personally (this may be called speculation) I believe that scientists cannot prove that the universe was at some point at infinite density in an infinitely small volume (zero volume). What scientists can say however is that they can calculate back and also observe that the universe was a lot smaller earlier on. And even smaller before that. And then even smaller and denser before that. And before even that, we don't know (only models exist, but no measurements or observations)... but a little extrapolation suggests that it all came from a single point... which then logically should have infinite density.

 

I believe that there is no solid evidence for the first bit of time after the actual Big Bang.

 

Scientists have been able to build a model which can calculate back what the universe could have looked like (and should have looked like if our laws of physics are true)... But the oldest direct measurement is from the Cosmic background radiation... and then the universe was already 380,000 years old.

[IM Egdall]

The big bang theory is based on general relativity. And general relativity blows up (gives infinite answers) at time zero of the big bang. Thus our current best theory of gravity cannot describe the exact moment when the universe began. So what was our universe like at its very beginning? Nobody knows.

 

We need a new theory. Physicists are working on a number of approaches to try and combine quantum mechanics with general relativty into a new theory of "quantum gravity". String theory is one example. Hopefully, once one of these theories is validated by experimental evidence, we may know more about the exact moment when the universe began. Until then, all new theories, proposals, ideas are speculation.

[36grit]

I have heard of other theories but the big bang seems to be tho most popular. Most others include or explain some kind of big bang. I saw a show on TV where Carl Sagan and some of his collegues claimed that they solved the mystery of what caused the big bang, and attempted to explain the origins of our universe. They explained that two (or more) Universes collided and caused a chain reaction. Ofcourse there where diagrams, math, and lots of scienticfic hype and mumbo jumbo that I tried to understand. I like to think that I am a man of reason and I really do enjoy watching and learning from the reasonings of other deep thinking people.

After the documentery the big question that loomed between my ears was, where did those other universes come from? And what caused their big bang? Somewhere somehow there must have been a single original universe and what makes them think that this one is not it? Seems that one way or another we still have to explain an orinal big bang if the theory is going to hold water.

I hear Steven Hawkins has a new theory called bounce theory. I will check that out a little later when I find the time. I've also heard, and used to believe, that mass and everyting will keep on expanding until even the tinyest of particles and waves reach a point of nothingness and then the cycle will start all over some how.

As far as I know there are not to many other theories on the origins of the universe. Ofcourse all the "Gods" have their stories and I have mine. Somehow a big bang seems to be a pretty common thread though. I'd like to hear some other theories and/or other problems that people have with the "big bang" theory.

My own personal opinion is that the Big Bang model is becoming a little out dated. What we need are some new ideas to ponder. Some new models to calculate. Something to fill the gaps and holes in the old theory. Sting theory sounds kind of cool but I think it's way to complicated to be true. I'm don't think that "complicated" necessrily constitutes a "hole" in the theory, but I did see a clip or two where it made some physicist feel uneasy about it. M theory has a similar problem but again, I guess that doesn't make them wrong.

I'm starting to see progress on you tube in the understanding of quantum physics and it seems it's starting to out grow it's "Quack" stage. Ifyou know what I mean. And we've come a long way since the big bang theory. Today we have a much better understanding of back holes, and pulsars. Scientists have recently discovered that reality is an energy wave. We've come to the conclusion that this might not be the only universe existing in the realms of what is, and the ideas of parallel universes has gained some degree of acceptance in the scientific community. So let's have it, come on with your theories and lets poke and plug holes. The biggest obsticles in our way seem to be a lack of understanding in the study of gravity and time. I look forward to hearing some other theories.

Mark out!