Scientific Discussion [BIG BANG]

[Sanctus]

To start off, if you feel you may take anything on here personally, then go outside and hit your big toe with a large hammer. This is just a discusion, so no rudeness please.


So the big bang. The Universe is the size of a single atom before time, space, and crazy republicans existed. Okay, that last bit was a cheap shot, but kinda funny. I have some questions:

How can the universe expand, if there was no space before it? If there is nowhere to expand, then you can't expand, yet scientists believe the Universe is forever expanding and accelerating.

Second: My Environmental Science teacher (who mainly teaches astronomy) told me that there is no center to the universe, to think of the Universe as the surface of a balloon. Ok, what's at the center of the balloon?

Finally, where did the atom-sized, infinitely-dense ball of matter come from?

[Limited]

How can the universe expand, if there was no space before it?
Define space, see thing is, no one knows. They can make educated guesses, but not know how it happened 100%.

[Advancebo]

I wanna know if theres an edge of the Universe to.

[ThePlague]

wow /religious beliefs

[Sanctus]

Space, how I define it, is a void that allows for free movement of matter within its volume, however finite or infinite. For me, this raises a more ontological question: What is beyond the Universe?

Btw, I'm not necessarily saying I know for sure what space is, just how I understand it.

[jcap]

Actually the universe was less than an atom fractions of a nanosecond before the big bang.

Also, watch The Elegant Universe. It's about the The Theory of Everything, but it is related to this topic.

[Heathen]

To start off, if you feel you may take anything on here personally, then go outside and hit your big toe with a large hammer. This is just a discusion, so no rudeness please.


So the big bang. The Universe is the size of a single atom before time, space, and crazy republicans existed. Okay, that last bit was a cheap shot, but kinda funny. I have some questions:

How can the universe expand, if there was no space before it? If there is nowhere to expand, then you can't expand, yet scientists believe the Universe is forever expanding and accelerating.

Second: My Environmental Science teacher (who mainly teaches astronomy) told me that there is no center to the universe, to think of the Universe as the surface of a balloon. Ok, what's at the center of the balloon?

Finally, where did the atom-sized, infinitely-dense ball of matter come from?





I mean, its basically the same dilemmas you have on the opposite side of the coin. Who created God and where did they come from?

The Big Bang happened, but we don't really understand why.

What I dont understand is, if its expanding from a single point, then wouldn't that be the center? I think your teacher is talking out of their ass.

[Sanctus]

Well I believe the general consensus of the entire scientific community, is that there is no center.

[Heathen]

oh I know that, I just really cannot understand that.

[arbiter901]

Lets look at it this way, the universe is like a giant bubble that expands from the force of the big bang.
Big Bangs actually happen all the time.

Sorry if im not being specific, let me look for a youtube video

[arbiter901]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3uNrI8tE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5AahyfQwF0

This won't explain all though

[Bodzilla]

I wanna know if theres an edge of the Universe to.
There is, we know this because we can prove that space time is expanding. we are getting further away from anything else in the universe, stars, solar systems, galaxys, therefore the universe is expanding.

cool thread DONT FUCK IT UP GUYS OR I SWEAR TO GOD I WILL BLUDGEON YOU TO DEATH WITH A STAPLER.

posting more when i get home :D

[Arteen]

From my understanding...



How can the universe expand, if there was no space before it? If there is nowhere to expand, then you can't expand, yet scientists believe the Universe is forever expanding and accelerating.




The universe didn't expand into some empty space. Space expanded.


Second: My Environmental Science teacher (who mainly teaches astronomy) told me that there is no center to the universe, to think of the Universe as the surface of a balloon. Ok, what's at the center of the balloon?
The universe is like the surface of a balloon, not the balloon itself. The surface of the balloon has no center. Don't take the analogy too far.

Also, reality is an illusion, and nothing really exists, so you can only go so far with a physical interpretation of the universe.

[Sanctus]

That's what I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. How can you have expansion if there is nothing to expand into?

And I think I understand about the balloon analogy now

[TeeKup]

Also, reality is an illusion, and nothing really exists, so you can only go so far with a physical interpretation of the universe.

"Reality" is what each and every person perceives to "exist"

For some reason, I don't know why, but I've always enjoyed that little theory.

[kid908]

Alot of theories are based around different science, just like belief and religion.

If you follow string theory, more specific being m-theory, the universe was created by the collision of 2 membrane. That was the big bang. The collision created a bubble in hyperspace, one of those bubble is the location of our universe. This is the theory for the multiverse and multiple versions of ourselves living our lives in every possible way.

You're environmental science teacher is correct, as far as we're concern with available data that this point. The universe have a point of origin, but doesn't have a center since it curves. Scientists believe it's a cylindrical shape or elliptical shape. There are also those who will argue that it is a flat plane.

if you're going with quantum (I believe it was quantum), the spec before the big bang contained the fundamental forces of the known universe as 1 super force. Somehow, gravity weakened and broke apart followed by the other forces making the spec (I really don't know what they call it) unstable and explode.

There's proof of the big bang through radiation if you're asking about that too.

Sorry if this was covered in the vids, I didn't watch it.


for the expansion, think of a balloon exploding in a vacuum. The balloon is the spec and it explode, air goes out into the vacuum even tho there's nothing there.

[Warsaw]

The universe is like the surface of a balloon because there are other dimensions that we presumably are unable to perceive. We perceive things in four dimensions: depth, height, breadth, and time. With just those four dimensions, sure, the universe is the balloon and everything in it. However, there are other dimensions, which we can represent with the air inside the balloon. You can't really make a model of it though, because models are 3D, and as such you can't really illustrate what it looks like.

What is the reason for the Big Bang? Good question. Maybe it is a reaction taking place on a larger scale, slowed down to our senses due to our infinitesimally small size. Liken it to a fission reaction, only because we are so tiny what seems to us to be millions of years (an arbitrary concept), is really a few "seconds" in the big picture.

As for edges of the universe; perhaps once you reach the edge you clip to the other side opposite of where you were? Maybe you enter into an alternate universe. Theoretically, there could be an infinite number of universes, and there is no space in between. Hell, some universes may be comprised primarily of anti-matter, as opposed to the "normal" matter of our space.

[TeeKup]

I've always enjoyed a certain other theory. I can't remember it's name but it explains for each and every decision you make there is a branch off universe where you take the other choice offered to you.

An Example:
Today I chose to watch a movie instead of hanging out with friends, well in the parallel I went with my friends instead of the movie.

[Kalub]

I hate topics like this.

[kid908]

I've always enjoyed a certain other theory. I can't remember it's name but it explains for each and every decision you make there is a branch off universe where you take the other choice offered to you.

An Example:
Today I chose to watch a movie instead of hanging out with friends, well in the parallel I went with my friends instead of the movie.

That's part of M-theory, String theory, and the Multiverse theory. There may be others but those seem to be the big ones I can remember.

@WarSaw: there is space between universe in M-theory. That is where the Membranes are located. There are also alternate dimensions (this dimension I'm referring to is reality dimensions, not perception dimension you mentioned) which stack on top of each other with or without space between.

While on dimension and multiverse, the subatomic particles called "strings" are theorized to be multidimensional particles of vibrating energy. Cool, I'm in an infinate number of places at once =D


I really hate threads like these. Most of the shit talked about are just equations on a board with really, no proof to it. Then again, that's the whole field of theoretical physics. Just keep in mind that there really are no right or wrong answer, yes there are wrong answers if you're trying to be stupid, and most of these theories are speculation based on equations you see on a board. VERY VERY LONG EQUATIONS.

[Bodzilla]

I've always enjoyed a certain other theory. I can't remember it's name but it explains for each and every decision you make there is a branch off universe where you take the other choice offered to you.

An Example:
Today I chose to watch a movie instead of hanging out with friends, well in the parallel I went with my friends instead of the movie.

thats more superstition then science lol
it's one thing to have an hypothesis, it's a completely different kettle of fish when your dealing with with a theory :eng101:

[CN3089]

Well I believe the general consensus of the entire scientific community, is that there is no center.

There's definitely a center of the observable universe, that would be us. aristotle was right~ :neckbeard:

[Jelly]

So the big bang. The Universe is the size of a single atom before time, space, and crazy republicans existed.
The universe was completely non-existent before the big bang. There was literally nothing. We think. There's currently no scientific methods which can tell us what there was before the big bang.


How can the universe expand, if there was no space before it? If there is nowhere to expand, then you can't expand, yet scientists believe the Universe is forever expanding and accelerating.
We don't know what, if anything, is outside the universe, or even if our laws of physics can apply to whatever is there. We do, however, know that the universe is expanding thanks to red shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift), among other things.


Second: My Environmental Science teacher (who mainly teaches astronomy) told me that there is no center to the universe, to think of the Universe as the surface of a balloon. Ok, what's at the center of the balloon?


The (3D) balloon analogy is of a two-dimensional universe. In a two dimensional universe, you can only go up, down, left and right. As the balloon expands, the spots (representing galaxies) move away from each other. A two dimensional being can only move in the two dimensions around the balloon, and can never reach the middle of the balloon.

Similarly, our universe is a kind of four-dimensional balloon; we can only move along the three-dimensional "surface," never reaching the center. It's very hard to describe a four dimensional object in terms that we can understand, but Carl Sagan gives a good attempt here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KT4M7kiSw)


Finally, where did the atom-sized, infinitely-dense ball of matter come from?


We don't know, and probably never will. Science exists to explain our universe, and trying to explain something outside of our universe using observations from our universe will probably never work.

All hope is not lost though; there's a few teams of people who are using various quantum theories to try and work out what happened before the big bang.

[Dwood]

The universe was completely non-existent before the big bang. There was literally nothing. We think. There's currently no scientific methods which can tell us what there was before the big bang.


If there was nothing there then there couldn't have been anything at all. Therefore it had to already exist in one form or another or else it can't exist. If Matter didn't exist before the Big Bang, then there's no chance for matter at all. Therefore we know that before the big bang, there was matter.

Which leads me to believe that If the Big Bang theory holds any dice at all (which I believe we will find something that explains more than the Big Bang Theory) there were multiple clumps of matter.

Simply because (I believe) the Amount of force that is required to hold that much matter together would implode/if it didn't then it would be extremely fragile and any disturbance to it would cause it to implode





The (3D) balloon analogy is of a two-dimensional universe. In a two dimensional universe, you can only go up, down, left and right. As the balloon expands, the spots (representing galaxies) move away from each other. A two dimensional being can only move in the two dimensions around the balloon, and can never reach the middle of the balloon.




For those of you that want a better visual think of a box/rectangle that's always expanding.

[=sw=warlord]

I firmly believe the big bang theory holds alot more water than many of theory that i've heard off in the past.
There was a documentary on the discovery channel a while back called "before the big bang" that explained it pretty well.
The whole there was no matter before the big bang understanding isnt the context that it is supposed to be seen in.
Imagine everything in the universe all matter energy and space and time all compacted into the size smaller than a proton so small all the major forces are combined into one main force.

[Rob Oplawar]

The concepts of space and time are constructs that we as being inside the universe have formed to describe what we perceive. In reality, there is no "space"; the universe is simply a single point of an immense amount of information (we somehow gain a feeling of self-awareness out of the information that describes us as "individuals"). Being that all matter in the universe exists together, all at once, in one "point", all matter effects all other matter (which we see through the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, which decrease exponentially with "distance" but never go away entirely).

"Space" is a coordinate system that we apply to this immense point of information we call the universe; we perceive 3 spatial and one temporal dimension because that is what our senses are equipped to perceive; those are simply four data points that describe particles in the universe, no different than the data that describe the particle's charge or mass (those values are variable too, you know). Mass, velocity, energy, position and time are all intrinsically related fields, probably simply different interpretations of the same concept (as velocity increases, so does mass, and as velocity remains constant, position changes in a manner directly proportional to "time".

Am I making sense? There's no such thing as spatial dimension as such, except that we perceive.

When the universe began, all particles had an immense amount of "energy", and that energy caused them to influence each other, affecting each others' energy and manipulating their mass/velocity/position; hence, in the big bang, all that energy was suddenly converted into what we now perceive as "space" (and it continues to do so- the universe continues to appear to "expand").

[Dwood]

I know this is off-topic but bear with me:

I read that if you could calculate the waveform of a human being you would get a vague, blurry shape of the human with a few of the waves reaching out to other planets... Meaning that there is a possible chance of you being randomly teleported to some planet in outerspace.

[Jelly]

If there was nothing there then there couldn't have been anything at all. Therefore it had to already exist in one form or another or else it can't exist. If Matter didn't exist before the Big Bang, then there's no chance for matter at all. Therefore we know that before the big bang, there was matter.
You can't say that. Why should the universe's laws of physics apply outside of the universe?

[kid908]

@Dwood:
I'm not sure about be teleported into outer space, but electrons seem to be multidimensional particles which move between our universe and others.


I want to ask this: worm holes and black holes. Is there definate proof they exist? Black holes suck matter into a single singularity. Does that pressure apply to worm hole? By that I mean, there are scifi use of worm hole to travel great distances, but would you be crushed like you would entering a black hole. Also, how does a worm hole come to be? Black hole are the result of imploding star masses, but what makes a worm hole? Since worm holes and black holes are bending of the space time fabric and not a rip in the space time fabric, does that mean this universe's laws apply or is it like hyperspace/slip stream where it has it's own set of laws which is use to explain FTL?

[=sw=warlord]

Blackholes have been proven to exist wormholes not so much.
Infact i seem to remember there is a super massive blackhole in the center of our galaxy.
Blackhole's are basicly stars that have collapsed under their own gravity and due to the increased density their gravity draw's more matter in which increases the gravity all the while drawing more matter untill the gravity becomes so strong photons cannot escape the blackhole's gravity.
Super massive blackholes seem to have quasars shooting out from the polar north and south which emmit so much energy if one was to pass over earth everysingle thing on this planet would be dead several times over.

[Dwood]

You can't say that. Why should the universe's laws of physics apply outside of the universe?

Yes, i can, under the same reasoning you used: Why would their laws apply to ours? Not only that, but there's no actual proof of any other dimensions/realities. It's all just theory with nothing that can be currently proven under scientific studies. Therefore, it must be assumed, until other information that cannot be proven wrong/debated (it only takes one point to prove an entire theory false) that the known laws of the universe cannot be violated. e.g. Matter can't be created without something already there.

I would also like to add that we cannot prove the theory false. Just like we can't (at this point and time) prove Time Travel false (Mathematically, that is).

@Kid/higuy(?): They are not multidimensional, as far as we are aware. It is simply scalability at it's best. in short the idea is thus: The larger or smaller something gets, the more the laws that apply to the molecule change.

About your Wormhole//Blackhole question: Stephen Hawking has done a lot of work on Black holes recently and proven that it is possible for them to exist. In fact, that has been known for about ~20 years (don't quote me on that) As for your wormhole question, Wormholes are simply a theory at this moment and, i'm sorry to say, we do not know the answer. If you want to, you can go watch an episode or two of Stargate-SG1/Atlantis to make you feel better :lol:

http://www.google.com/search?q=stephen+hawking+and+black+holes

[Con]

I don't understand how black holes can emit radiation when nothing is supposed to be able to get past the event horizon.

[Disaster]

I don't understand how black holes can emit radiation when nothing is supposed to be able to get past the event horizon.

:golfclap:

I never even thought of that.

[Rentafence]

Because hawking radiation is special vOv

[kid908]

Hawking's radiations phase through almost every matter, if not all.

a quick summary of string theory for those interested

ZnQLsERqTIg
MMG7LA4Rsq8
NOzP6XhtAXo
Du0LqsBe_iw

And yes, he is very creditable in this field.

[CN3089]

Hawking's radiations phase through almost every matter, if not all.

it's just ordinary black body thermal radiation hth

[Rob Oplawar]

Fine, ignore my :seriouspost:. Be that way.

[Con]

I just did the reading on hawking radiation, lets see if I understand...

Just inside the event horizon, vacuum energy from fields' "vibrations" creates a particle-antiparticle pair (virtual photons). There is a probability that one will make it outside the event horizon by quantum tunneling because of its uncertainty.

[Gamerkd16]

I've always enjoyed a certain other theory. I can't remember it's name but it explains for each and every decision you make there is a branch off universe where you take the other choice offered to you.

An Example:
Today I chose to watch a movie instead of hanging out with friends, well in the parallel I went with my friends instead of the movie.

Ha, do we have any Fringe viewers in here? This alternate universe discussion reminds me a lot of that.

[=sw=warlord]

I just did the reading on hawking radiation, lets see if I understand...

Just inside the event horizon, vacuum energy from fields' "vibrations" creates a particle-antiparticle pair (virtual photons). There is a probability that one will make it outside the event horizon by quantum tunneling because of its uncertainty.
Sound's pretty close to me.
My understanding is blackholes are spinning at a fraction of the speed of light and due to such rotation that some matter will be slingshot out of the polar north and south of the event horizon.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sources/quasars.html

[Jelly]

Yes, i can, under the same reasoning you used: Why would their laws apply to ours? Not only that, but there's no actual proof of any other dimensions/realities. It's all just theory with nothing that can be currently proven under scientific studies. Therefore, it must be assumed, until other information that cannot be proven wrong/debated (it only takes one point to prove an entire theory false) that the known laws of the universe cannot be violated. e.g. Matter can't be created without something already there.

I would also like to add that we cannot prove the theory false. Just like we can't (at this point and time) prove Time Travel false (Mathematically, that is).
I think you're forgetting how science works. You need to provide evidence to support your claim, not the other way around. The laws of physics have been shown to work inside the universe; in making the claim that the laws of physics apply outside the universe, your theory becomes non-falsifiable, untestable and not science.

[=sw=warlord]

I would also like to add that we cannot prove the theory false. Just like we can't (at this point and time) prove Time Travel false (Mathematically, that is).


Time travel has been found that it is more than likely posssible.
oRWwI61so5Q
X02WMNoHSm8

[Jelly]

http://www.astronomycast.com/cosmology/episode-31-string-theory-time-travel-white-holes-warp-speed-multiple-dimensions-and-before-the-big-bang/

[Dwood]

I think you're forgetting how science works. You need to provide evidence to support your claim, not the other way around. The laws of physics have been shown to work inside the universe; in making the claim that the laws of physics apply outside the universe, your theory becomes non-falsifiable, untestable and not science.

Ah but your claim can also be reversed, as there is no proof of other dimensions outside of what we consider the Four.

I do not see how my reasoning implies that our laws apply to other "dimensions". All I am saying is that you cannot prove nor disprove there being multiple dimensions at this time- It's all just theory. Therefore, you MUST assume that something had to already of been there in order for it to exist at all. If there was nothing, then there can't be anything. Matter can't just pop up randomly.

What I am suggesting is that further proof that is "falsifiable" (like your dimensions theory) is put on the table, we have to stick with the idea that there are only 4 dimensions, as they are the only ones we are able to observe and actually test the data.

[kid908]

Ah but your claim can also be reversed, as there is no proof of other dimensions outside of what we consider the Four.

I do not see how my reasoning implies that our laws apply to other "dimensions". All I am saying is that you cannot prove nor disprove there being multiple dimensions at this time- It's all just theory. Therefore, you MUST assume that something had to already of been there in order for it to exist at all. If there was nothing, then there can't be anything. Matter can't just pop up randomly.

What I am suggesting is that further proof that is "falsifiable" (like your dimensions theory) is put on the table, we have to stick with the idea that there are only 4 dimensions, as they are the only ones we are able to observe and actually test the data.

Explain the Big Bang then. Matter was just created right there and then. There is 11 dimensions (unless you're talking about alternate realities, then there's an infinite number), not just 4 and the proof is in the equations.

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

In science, you don't assume things are the same without proof. You CAN assume things are different as there are no proof if it is the same or it isn't.

Put it this way. You're on a road and your view is blocked by very dense fog. Since you're going straight now and the area you can see is straight, does that mean it's going to be straight where the fog block your view? No, the road could be different with either a T intersection or the road turns. It's always safer to assume that the road is different than it is the same all the way through.

[Jelly]

Ah but your claim can also be reversed, as there is no proof of other dimensions outside of what we consider the Four.
I think you are arguing with the wrong person, since I never mentioned anything about dimensions, except in the balloon analogy.


Therefore, you MUST assume that something had to already of been there in order for it to exist at all. If there was nothing, then there can't be anything. Matter can't just pop up randomly.
Nope; not our universe, not our rules.


What I am suggesting is that further proof that is "falsifiable" (like your dimensions theory) is put on the table, we have to stick with the idea that there are only 4 dimensions, as they are the only ones we are able to observe and actually test the data.
We can't say dimensions existed before the universe (they probably didn't)

[Botolf]

Therefore, you MUST assume that something had to already of been there in order for it to exist at all. If there was nothing, then there can't be anything. Matter can't just pop up randomly.
Wrong. This is exactly what deists and the like use as evidence that god exists. But there's a pretty big assumption in this: that the universe could not have sprung from nothing. Everything we've gathered so far does not suggest anything about what came "before" (Which is likely a meaningless question, without time there is no before, time as we know it originated in the big bang along with space). We know it happened, and it's possible we will never determine whether there was a "before" or if the universe was created ex nihilo. We don't know right now.

[Rorschach]

Deists may call on that to account for god, but the other theists never waste a chance to tell you the universe was created ex nihilo when they get it.


Nope; not our universe, not our rules.
...what?

[Cojafoji]

so maybe, and i'm just throwing this out there....

every universe is conceived through the use of black holes. that being, everything in the universe is cyclical, like time.

the black holes of each universe empty into another dimension, and when that dimension is "ready" the compressed matter explodes causing a big bang.

if life really IS like that then that effectively solves all of the variable questions like "when did the universe begin, chicken or the egg etc" because it has been going on infinitely.

sorry for the shitty grammar, i'm hammered.

[Botolf]

It only pushes the question back in an infinite regress. Doesn't really solve anything.

[Jelly]

...what?
Whatever came before the universe wasn't the universe.

[=sw=warlord]

so maybe, and i'm just throwing this out there....

every universe is conceived through the use of black holes. that being, everything in the universe is cyclical, like time.

the black holes of each universe empty into another dimension, and when that dimension is "ready" the compressed matter explodes causing a big bang.

if life really IS like that then that effectively solves all of the variable questions like "when did the universe begin, chicken or the egg etc" because it has been going on infinitely.

sorry for the shitty grammar, i'm hammered.
But that's the point blackholes don't empty out anywhere for the majority blackholes crush atoms into a near infinite small area called the event horizon.
Where as some of the excess is expelled out of the polar north and south as quassars.
I've always been fond of the question on what exactly would happen if a blackhole were for some reason explode because theorists have found if a blackhole is not "feeding" it dissipates much like a hurricane over land.
But what if it grew into a super massive blackhole and some how detonated, there is a theory it could turn hypernova in which could be strong enough to blow away nearly all the stars in that local area along with their solar systems.

[Dwood]

Wrong. This is exactly what deists and the like use as evidence that god exists. But there's a pretty big assumption in this: that the universe could not have sprung from nothing. Everything we've gathered so far does not suggest anything about what came "before" (Which is likely a meaningless question, without time there is no before, time as we know it originated in the big bang along with space). We know it happened, and it's possible we will never determine whether there was a "before" or if the universe was created ex nihilo. We don't know right now.


I'm sorry. What? That's more of a religious thing statement than one that's backed up by fact.

I'm not saying the universe Sprang up from nothing. All that i'm saying is that until we have solid proof otherwise, not other dimensions interfering with ours, we must assume that Matter and energy has always existed, and therefore will always exist. The theoretical Big Bang (it has its own inconsistencies) didn't create matter or time. It's simply there because the scientists wanted to explain the creation of the Universe.

Btw, for most scientists, I believe that the Deists are as irrelevant to scientific discussion as Baptists telling you.

[kid908]

There is proof of the big bang through radiation and stop bringing proof into this. Most of this is on paper through equations. Unless you understand the equations, there will be no proof for you.


I'm now interested in what happens when 2 black hole collide.



@ warlord: the event horizon is the of no return, not the singularity. The singularity is where the atoms are "compressed" into infinitely small particles

[Dwood]

I'm now interested in what happens when 2 black hole collide.


I'm interested, too, now that you mentioned it :v:

[Botolf]

I'm sorry. What? That's more of a religious thing statement than one that's backed up by fact.

I'm not saying the universe Sprang up from nothing. All that i'm saying is that until we have solid proof otherwise, not other dimensions interfering with ours, we must assume that Matter and energy has always existed, and therefore will always exist. The theoretical Big Bang (it has its own inconsistencies) didn't create matter or time. It's simply there because the scientists wanted to explain the creation of the Universe.

Btw, for most scientists, I believe that the Deists are as irrelevant to scientific discussion as Baptists telling you.
I realize you weren't arguing from a religious standpoint, was just saying that some do argue in that manner.

What I'm saying is that we have to consider the possibility that the universe might have sprang from nothing, because we've no evidence that would indicate otherwise. We also lack any evidence whatsoever of anything existing before the Big Bang (Which is not surprising). I'm not invoking multiple dimensions or string theory or anything like that, I'm pointing out that we simply don't know at this point. We can't assume that matter, space, and time always existed, because we lack evidence to support that assumption. It's the same with the possibility of ex nihilo creation of the universe.

The evidence for the Big Bang's effects is quite large (background microwave radiation, red shifts, amount of light elements, and so on). If it's the first or the latest in a long line of Big Bangs, well, that's what we don't know.

[Botolf]

I'm now interested in what happens when 2 black hole collide.
Maybe instead of colliding, they'd orbit each other like binary stars.

*Googles to find out*

Edit: Fuck yes, binary black holes. Awesome :iamafag:

[kid908]

I'm asking what happens when it ACTUALLY collide with each other. No whether it would or not.

[Botolf]

My guess is that the two would combine into one giant black hole, twice as massive and twice as scary as before. :smith:

Google sez one black hole could get kicked out of the galaxy, merge, create scary gravitational waves.

[Needles]

I've wondered...
If the universe has black holes and anti-matter, how long before that could actually destroy the universe? I don't know if black holes actually 'destory' matter, but I do know anti matter does.

Also, if the universe prone to stop expanding, and possibly having another big bang?

[Dwood]

I've wondered...
If the universe has black holes and anti-matter, how long before that could actually destroy the universe? I don't know if black holes actually 'destory' matter, but I do know anti matter does.

Also, if the universe prone to stop expanding, and possibly having another big bang?

Anti matter does not destroy matter. All it does is transfer all that matter directly to energy. That's why a quarter-sized amount of it is dangerous enough to destroy a whole continent.

[Needles]

Anti matter does not destroy matter. All it does is transfer all that matter directly to energy. That's why a quarter-sized amount of it is dangerous enough to destroy a whole continent.
Hm....that's somone confusing. :ugh:
So how long before black holes and anti matter start being serious enough to "destroy" or do whatever they do the matter? Is that possible?

[=sw=warlord]

I've wondered...
If the universe has black holes and anti-matter, how long before that could actually destroy the universe? I don't know if black holes actually 'destory' matter, but I do know anti matter does.

Also, if the universe prone to stop expanding, and possibly having another big bang?
Blackholes are understood to not destroy matter as you cannot destroy matter only convert it to energy.
As for the universe contracting again recent research has found the expansion is accelerating leading to theories of dark energy.

[PopeAK49]

The universe is something that humans can't even comprehend. We will never know how the universe is truly born.

[Needles]

Blackholes are understood to not destroy matter as you cannot destroy matter only convert it to energy.
As for the universe contracting again recent research has found the expansion is accelerating leading to theories of dark energy.
Heh..lots of strange stuff.

Says on wikipedia that dark energy is what keeps the universe expanding.
Still wondering though, are chances high for it to stop expanding and detract in the next billions of years.

I've even seen theories that in very long times, the universe may just not have enough garvity, and everything may just serperate. Heh, interesting stuff.

[jcap]

Just FYI, "Parallel Universe" has just started on the Science Channel.

[Sanctus]

Ha, do we have any Fringe viewers in here? This alternate universe discussion reminds me a lot of that.
Me! And I'm fairly sure my brother is one too :P
Aside from Nikola Tesla, Michio Kaku is my hero in science :neckbeard:

[Sanctus]

But that's the point blackholes don't empty out anywhere for the majority blackholes crush atoms into a near infinite small area called the event horizon.
Where as some of the excess is expelled out of the polar north and south as quassars.
I've always been fond of the question on what exactly would happen if a blackhole were for some reason explode because theorists have found if a blackhole is not "feeding" it dissipates much like a hurricane over land.
But what if it grew into a super massive blackhole and some how detonated, there is a theory it could turn hypernova in which could be strong enough to blow away nearly all the stars in that local area along with their solar systems.

I believe there is a theory, if not an idea, that black holes empty out into white holes. In other words, one is an entrance and the other is an exit.

[kid908]

so you're saying a worm hole...

[=sw=warlord]

so you're saying a worm hole...
Which is not a blackhole.

[Jelly]

I believe there is a theory, if not an idea, that black holes empty out into white holes. In other words, one is an entrance and the other is an exit.
White holes cannot exist. Even if they used to, once they come into contact with one tiny piece of matter they will collapse into black holes.

Also, wormholes can exist theoretically, but only for an infinitesimally small amount of time. They would be so unstable that as soon as they were opened, they would collapse.


If the universe has black holes and anti-matter, how long before that could actually destroy the universe? I don't know if black holes actually 'destory' matter, but I do know anti matter does.
Black holes will not destroy the universe. When a black hole evaporates, it poops out everything it has eaten, so matter that has been sucked in is not lost forever.


Also, if the universe prone to stop expanding, and possibly having another big bang?
I think you're misunderstanding the big bang; it was not an explosion in space, it was an explosion of space.


I'm not saying the universe Sprang up from nothing. All that i'm saying is that until we have solid proof otherwise, not other dimensions interfering with ours, we must assume that Matter and energy has always existed, and therefore will always exist. The theoretical Big Bang (it has its own inconsistencies) didn't create matter or time. It's simply there because the scientists wanted to explain the creation of the Universe.
Before the big bang, there was not enough space to hold one millionth of a fraction of a photon. There was literally nothing. Not nothing as in "ooh there's just enough space here for a reaction," nothing as in nothing. No dimensions, no physics, no time, no invisible pink unicorn, no flying spaghetti monster. The universe is defined by the laws of physics that govern it, not all the stars and planets; the planets and stars are caused by the physics. No physics existed. No dimensions existed.

Stop thinking of the big bang as a lump of matter, sitting in a big empty space which already has predefined laws of physics, which had an nuclear reaction and exploded. That is not what happened.

Imagine you are sitting in dimensionless space, with no physics to allow anything to exist. You're probably dead now, oh well. Imagine nothing. Imagine it sitting in front of you. Look at all that nothing. When you next blink, that nothing has turned into a three-dimensional universe filled with lots of matter and antimatter and energy all whizzing around obeying laws of physics which were just made up when you blinked. There, now you have some kind of idea of the big bang.

You might struggle to blink because you have just been killed by the dimensionless, physics-less space, but I am sure you understand what I am getting at.

[neuro]

i'd also like to add to this, that it's actually makes perfect sense that NOTHING exploded into EVERYTHING. scientifically, it's all 100% explicable. it's high math and quantum theories, but it's still perfectly acceptable that nothign became everything so to speak.

jelly is on the right track here.

theoretically speaking it's also possible to literally fold space (make wormholes) but the sheer amount of energy required is something along the lines of 3000 supernova's or something.

though when you think about it, there's absolutely no reason for such a force not to exist.

[Con]

i'd also like to add to this, that it's actually makes perfect sense that NOTHING exploded into EVERYTHING. scientifically, it's all 100% explicable. it's high math and quantum theories, but it's still perfectly acceptable that nothign became everything so to speak.

jelly is on the right track here.

theoretically speaking it's also possible to literally fold space (make wormholes) but the sheer amount of energy required is something along the lines of 3000 supernova's or something.

though when you think about it, there's absolutely no reason for such a force not to exist.
I don't think it's that nothing created something, but more that all the matter and energy and laws are product of something that was always there...

[neuro]

look at it this way.. the laws were there.. there was just nothing for the laws to apply to (yet)

[Sanctus]

So since there was absolutely nothing before the big bang, and it's space itself that's expanding, then couldn't the universe be the same "size", just expanding from our point of view?

[klange]

So since there was absolutely nothing before the big bang, and it's space itself that's expanding, then couldn't the universe be the same "size", just expanding from our point of view?
Yeah, sure, go with it.

[Warsaw]

Oh noes, everything is shrinking! :lol:

[Con]

Some physicist probably facepalmed at this thread

[PopeAK49]

I like how people in this thread post false statements and make it act as though they are true. :allears:

[Warsaw]

Nothing is certain. We are talking about the beginning and nature of the universe here...even everything the certified physicists have come up with is theoretical...excepting the laws of thermodynamics. Fuck, for all we know, we are sitting inside a magical portal on Charlie's back.