A Thought Experiment

[infamous]

 

That said, why couldn’t our universe be the same, a universe anti-universe scenario. This would eliminate the problem of having more matter than anti-matter being created.

I like the sound of this description Little B., gives rise to many other posibilities and a host of other questions.

(1). If this is the case, there exists in our local vicinity an anti universe not necessarily within our universe but possibly adjacent to it.

(2). Accepting this scenario, my first question would be "is this where mass goes when we describe the phenomenom of black holes?"

(3) And if this is true, we then should not call them black but rather a doorway to our neighbor.

[coldcreation]

If there are very high energy photons in the area of the virtual particles, I think we would see two things.

 

#1 We would see the MAGIC (because we don’t understand the process) of electromagnetic energy being converted to matter.

 

#2 My imagination says the camera would show a picture that mimics the description the theorists use to describe the Big Bang.

 

That said, why couldn’t our universe be the same, a universe anti-universe scenario. This would eliminate the problem of having more matter than anti-matter being created.

 

1. matter is energy just like a photon is a wave and a particle. There is thus no nedd to visualize a conversion process, they are one and the same thing.

 

2. Ney.

 

3. The universe consistes of spacetime, fields and mass-energy. Therefore an anti-universe would consist of mass-energy (with the opposite sign), fields, and _____.

What is the opposite of spacetime?

[Little Bang]

coldc, I think you & I are reading two different books, but that's ok, it's just a thought experiment.

You say matter and energy are one and the same, it's hard for me to see how E=M without CC. Matter is the tiny compressed package of energy = E/C^2, but as far as the human race is concerned the equation is not reversible.

 

infamous, I have some questions, I'll send you an email tomorrow.

[infamous]

 

infamous, I have some questions, I'll send you an email tomorrow.

 

Same time same station, I'll be expecting to hear from you.

[Tormod]

Another thing to consider is at the start of the big bang, all matter was travelling faster than the speed of light. And did light even exist that early? Was it still made up of photons?

 

no one knows...

 

There was no matter and thus no light at the beginning of the Big Bang.

 

BTW, how would you define the Big Bang as an event? Where did it happen, and how long would you say "the start of the big bang" lasted?

 

Just my $.02.

[infamous]

There was no matter and thus no light at the beginning of the Big Bang.

 

BTW, how would you define the Big Bang as an event? Where did it happen, and how long would you say "the start of the big bang" lasted?

 

Just my $.02.

 

At 10^-32 sec. baryogenesis begins

 

At 10^-5 sec. protons and neutrons form

 

Between one and three minutes universe is 50 lightyears in radius.

[infamous]

Here is a good attachment that explains much about what we presume to know about the Big Bang.

[amt7565]

Many theories out there now explaining the Bigbang. What is baffling is how can something arise out of nothing? I was watching a TV program recently, and the latest claim is that, Time did exist before the big bang and that our Universe was the creation due to the clash of 2 other universes...

 

Sometimes alot of these theories doesn't make sense......but it's the best we have...atleast for now...

 

AMT-

[Little Bang]

It's called M theory, but as it's name emplies it's still a theory with no data to back it up.

How do you create something out of nothing, that's the 64 million dollar question. But turning a virtual particle into a real particle is the same process, if you find the answer please let us know.

[Little Bang]

infamous, the attachment was good but it's the same thing they have been teaching since Feynman except with the addition of Quarks.

[Tormod]

infamous, the attachment was good but it's the same thing they have been teaching since Feynman except with the addition of Quarks.

 

That is because this is the standard model. It is the best explanation we have today...so until something else comes along the other explanations will either be varieties on the standard model or completely different ones. The latter tend to be more or less dismissed due to lack of scientific observation, although that does not imply that they are completely wrong.

 

By the way, there are not a "lot" of theories about the Big Bang - there is only a few, and they mostly explain what the Big Bang was. There is as of yet not a single, testable theory about what was *before* the Big Bang.

[Tormod]

...and also let me point out that "since Feynman" is not a very long time.

[infamous]

infamous, the attachment was good but it's the same thing they have been teaching since Feynman except with the addition of Quarks.

Absolutely Little Bang, I posted this because it fits in with the standard model, not necessarily completely in line with my view of things. I thought it might help the understanding of someone with questions about contemporary interpretation of the Big Bang. Does't mean that I agree completely with the assumed Big Bang itself.

[amt7565]

Only time will tell...

 

Centuries ago, scientists thought that the Earth was the center of the Universe. That has turned out to be wrong, even though it seemed to be a good hypothesis. And I am sure many prospective students in that time would have based their studies on the assumption that the Sun was the center.

 

Who knows how long the current theories will last? Would another Einstein bring a new radical change to Astronomy?

 

Only time will tell....

 

AMT-

[Tormod]

Centuries ago, scientists thought that the Earth was the center of the Universe.

 

Half a millenium ago, to be more precise. And the people who preached that the Earth was at the center of the universe were not scientists but philosophers or priests. Modern science started a bit after that. :Alien:

 

I agree with you that it was a plausible explanation but that is also the most important point - a theory lasts for as long as it remains the best way to explain things.

 

Who knows how long the current theories will last? Would another Einstein bring a new radical change to Astronomy?

 

Who knows how long anything will last, come to that. I don't think "another Einstein" will change anything. Rather, "several Einsteins" might do the trick. They are all around us. The main difference today and 100 years ago is that lots and lots of people are actually working on issues that were not even public knowledge back then. Science changes, as do scientists.

 

One reason theories are always changing is the way science itself works, through the scientific method. New ideas are great, but if they want to replace or change the current theories, then they must explain what we see better than the old theories. Simple, really.

 

Oh, and it must be possible to verify that they are correct, of course.

[infamous]

Half a millenium ago, to be more precise. And the people who preached that the Earth was at the center of the universe were not scientists but philosophers or priests. Modern science started a bit after that. :Alien:

 

I agree with you that it was a plausible explanation but that is also the most important point - a theory lasts for as long as it remains the best way to explain things.

 

 

.

Exactly Tormod, There are about as many new ideas floating around out there as there are people interested enough to care. Newly emerging evidence will continue to modify our understanding of our universe.

 

I look at the standard model in the same fashion that one may view the job that they are currently working. Before I will quite my job, I plan to have another lined up so I won't be unemployed for any extended period. Same way I view the standard model, I'll stick with it untill something better comes along. This doesn't mean I'm totally satisfied with the current model, in fact, I personally feel it lacks in many areas. So the search goes on, without something new to learn life would be absolutely boring.

[amt7565]

Wait...

Wouldn't current day scientists be called philosophers 10,000 years from now? LOL.