More than one Big Bang?

[Southtown]

HAHA That a good thing! :)

[jackson33]

if you do not know the cause of something, can you justify the reason as being from an unknown. in the case of gravity, even the formation of all we know, should have been from near the same time. could gravity then be something that develops into matter, during formation. even that matter which formed billions of years before or after would have another reaction.

 

much of science, in particular, speculative assumptions are based on the need for creation of all things. until about 1500, ignorance and certain desires influenced what thinking there was. much of science today is based on the logic and acceptance of old theory, a few given new life with minor change. the basic philosophy of that period has held on to this day.

 

on BBT, there is no real reason, other than augmentative assessments of distant movements and some strange mysterious energy which its said can only be explained by other things which are unknown. how many times have i argued the singularity thought down to a point, when only a divine intervention, makes sense.

 

in summery, science has had only one direction to flow. even in the pre-historic cave man days, gods of sorts directed mans activity. we just no longer sacrifice humans, just their ideas....

[Mike C]

If you don't know why a tree falls, it doesn't make a sound,

Buffy

 

If a tree falls, a scientist will go and investigate to find out WHY it fell.

 

A religious person would simply shrug his shoulders and say 'god' did it. Ha ha.

 

NS

[Buffy]

If you don't know why a tree falls, it doesn't make a sound

If a tree falls, a scientist will go and investigate to find out WHY it fell.

 

A religious person would simply shrug his shoulders and say 'god' did it. Ha ha.

No argument there.

 

The problem here is really that you're saying that because the scientist has concluded there's not enough data to say *why* it fell that the only reasonable conclusion is that *it did not fall.*

 

Logic is as logic does,

Buffy

[simay77]

We don't know enough about dark energy/matter to say for certain , but I am a believer in cycles and to my mind it makes sense that the pull of gravity will eventually slow down the universe and bring it all back to a singularity which is in my head nothing more than -almost- infinite pure energy. Then it WILL bang again and we will be having this discussion (possibly) in a few trillion trillion years. We porobably already had this discussion a few treillion trillion years ago. Or maybe my parents never met the last time out!!!

[Mike C]

#32

If you don't know why a tree falls, it doesn't make a sound,

Buffy

 

You introduced that statement and I answered it.

Anyway, you do not need to hear an effect. If you see a fallen tree, that is an effect. You can deduce the cause by what you see.

Whether it was a storm or a diseased tree.

 

NS

[Buffy]

Anyway, you do not need to hear an effect. If you see a fallen tree, that is an effect. You can deduce the cause by what you see. Whether it was a storm or a diseased tree.

Not necessarily! It could be entirely inconclusive: there simply may not be enough data to determine the actual cause. And as a result, the logic you are using would still insist that because its inconclusive it did not happen.

 

In normal science, its fine to say the tree fell--or the big bang happened--but we don't know why.

 

Conclusions,

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Anyway, you do not need to hear an effect. If you see a fallen tree, that is an effect. You can deduce the cause by what you see.

Whether it was a storm or a diseased tree.

What if it WAS a storm, AND the tree was diseased when it fell, but it was transported by a helicopter owned by the logging company to the hill nearby, then an elephant nudged it and it rolled down the hill where you found it? I'm just sayin... :phones:

 

Science is about trying to understand how things happen, coming up with proposals and testing them, and refining the understanding as new information comes in.

 

If it were all cause and effect, there would be no such thing as quantum physics and entanglement.

[jackson33]

the tree fell....apparently still there and all the evidence shows all trees will fall at some point, for a number of reasons. you have that tree and all the others as evidence to make a judgment.

 

the universe is what we see. we see a continues process of all matter and energy from the suspected trillions of formations and demise of matter over times we cannot measure. we base BBT on many things which are not backed up. theologians, no less guilty, say God has always existed. its easy to analog this with the tree just fell. on the other hand something has to be because our time line is now 14.2 bya (previously down to 4bya), some exotic energy is present in all we know and by all means gives credence to some kind of creation.

 

i would agree science is an ongoing process of determinations, especially with so many unknowns or lots of X's in the formula. my argument is just how many unknowns does it take to allow an alternative, logical and plausible theory to enter the discussion....if nothing else give the new folks getting interested, keep some imaginable solution which allows visionary or plausible questioning of whats seemingly an immovable theory...

 

side note; if every year one solar system forms, our known universe alone would be how old...? speaking of inconsistencies!!!

[Mike C]

#42

If it were all cause and effect, there would be no such thing as quantum physics and entanglement.

 

Before Quantum physics, it was presumed that light was a contiuous wave.

 

Two previous attempts to explain the light spectrum were incomplete.

Wiens formula explained the high energy side while the Rayleigh/Jeans formulas explained the low energy side.

 

When Planck reduced light to a 'pulse', his formula explained the entire spectrum. So he discovered the nature of light as a pulse.

 

Then Bohr provided the solution to the way the hydrogen atom radiates light as pulsations at different energy levels.

 

So these scientists were all searching for the causes of why light is what it is.

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

So these scientists were all searching for the causes of why light is what it is.

 

Perhaps, but that does not mean that science itself is a search for causes. :)

[Mike C]

Perhaps, but that does not mean that science itself is a search for causes.

 

If you want to substitute 'curiousity' for effect, then that is OK too.

 

Does religion promote curiousity?

 

NS

[Moontanman]

Is anyone familiar with brane theory? If I understand it correctly what we perceive as the big bang didn't occur. Instead two infinite brane's collided in eleven dimensional space and the big bang was every where all at once. when the two brane's collide they are immediately propelled away from each other by the energy release and when they get to a certain distance apart gravity (yes gravity which is the only force that extends out into higher dimensions) starts to pull them together again. From our stand point our universe is infinite but from a 11 dimensional perspective it is a finite 4 dimensional sheet. think of it as being like two wrinkled bed sheets hung out to dry on a clothesline. when they collide the wrinkles become points of collision those become big bangs. as the two universes come together from any one point it appears as single explosion but if you could stand out side our universe it would appear to be many big bangs occurring along the two brane's.

 

Michael

[Moadib]

I like donuts. What if a black hole and white hole was a part of the same anomoly? The black hole sucking everything in, the white hole spewing it out. Matter and energy would be ejected out, slow down after awhile, then start being drawn in by the black accellerating as it goes in.

The result would be a universal that is constantly big banging into a cosmic donut mmmm

PS no ive never heard of it do u have more info?

[CraigD]

I like donuts. What if a black hole and white hole was a part of the same anomoly? The black hole sucking everything in, the white hole spewing it out. Matter and energy would be ejected out, slow down after awhile, then start being drawn in by the black accellerating as it goes in.

The result would be a universal that is constantly big banging into a cosmic donut mmmm

A short answer to this is that, for about the past 25 years, not very many people have believed anything like this to be likely.

 

The idea hints at at least 3 separate ones with some history. Since some of the most readable speculation about these ideas are found not in non-fiction science texts, but in SF stories, I’ve sprinkled in a few such references.

 

First is the black hole-wormhole-white hole idea. This was popular ca. 1970, when astronomers were in the early stages of trying to puzzle out what a couple of kinds of strange observed objects were: black holes, and quasars. As one kind (black holes) seemed to be removing mass/energy from the visible universe, while the other (quasars, the suspected white holes) were emitting more radiation than could be explained, and the mathematical physics of General Relativity suggested that they could be invisibly connected (by worm holes, AKA Einstein-Rosen bridges).

 

Eventually, as the mathematical solutions to wormholes showed them to be so unstable that most people believed that, if they existed, they would have to be made with artificial technology beyond our ability to more than hint at (Carl Sagan’s 1985 SF novel “Contact” and the movie made of it depict such wormholes), and as the theory that galaxies all have super-massive black holes at their centers (nuclei), and quasars are simply galaxies where matter is falling toward these “active galactic nuclei” and being converted to radiation, became widely accepted, the black hole-wormhole-white hole idea was pretty much retired, except for some exotic variations involving different universes (Greg Egan’s 1997 SF novel “Diaspora” describes a lot of such exotic “gateways” - 267,904,176,383,054, to be precise :)).

 

Another idea is the “big crunch/bounce” family of cyclic universe theories. According to these, the universe will eventually collapse under its gravity into a small region, producing a few, many or a never-ending succession of future big bangs (One such cycle is described in Poul Anderson’s 1970 SF novel “Tau Zero”). This idea is taken seriously only by a few physicist these days, because it doesn’t fit observed data very well. One physicist who does is Frank Tipler, who published a collection of his ideas in a 1994 non-fiction popular science book “The Physics of Imortality”. Tipler’s work – called “omega theory” seems to be taken seriously only by a few, notably some ID proponents hungry for a real physicist (Tippler was a pretty well known name in the late ‘70s and ‘80s) theorizing about God and heaven. It’s some of the weirdest non-fiction I’ve ever read, leaning me toward the position of many who have concluded that Tipler has gone (or perhaps always was) crazy.

 

The last idea that comes to mind, and the one with the most current scientific acceptance, is that in the far future, nearly all mass/energy will be in the form of black holes, which over an very long period called the “black hole era”, will escape from their black holes via Hawking radiation, resulting in a future universe consisting of mostly photons. This is a pretty distant and dismal future, so not all that popular in SF – I vaguely recall some depictions of variations on the theme in Steven Baxter’s 1997 collection “Vacuum Diagrams”.

 

Pamela posted some relevant information from wikipedia on this question in this post.

[Moadib]

So Hawking radiation is a possible explaination for what happens to matter in a black hole,are there any good explainations for the apparent excesses of the white hole?

[CraigD]

So Hawking radiation is a possible explaination for what happens to matter in a black hole, …

Hawking radiation provides a mechanism by which black holes “evaporate”, not into a gas, but into about equal numbers of particle and antiparticles which annihilate to produce photons. This takes a tremendously long time, however.

 

A counterintuitive characteristic of Hawking radiation is that its power (power = energy/time) is

[math]P = \frac{\hbar c^6}{15360 \pi G^2 M^2}[/math]

, which is inversely proportional to the square of its mass. The time for a black hole to complete evaporate is

[math]t = \frac{5120 \pi G^2 M^3}{\hbar c^4} \dot= M^3 \cdot 8.40716 \times 10^{-17} \mbox{s/kg}^3[/math]

. Thus, a typical stellar mass black hole takes about [math]10^{68}[/math] years, while a supermassive one like our galaxy’s will take about [math]10^{87}[/math] years, durations so large (considering that the universe is currently about [math]10^{10}[/math] years old) as to be practically eternities.

 

Though it predicts an eventual end of the far, far future black hole era, what Hawking radiation is really good for is explaining why we don’t see lots of small black holes. Using the formula above, a 1 kg black hole would evaporate (“evaporate” is a deceptive word, as the energy released, about [math]10^{18} \,\mbox{J}[/math], is equivalent to 250 million tons of TNT explosive, released much more suddenly) in less than [math]10^{-16}[/math] seconds. Most physicist take comfort in the idea that Hawking radiation assures that nothing we can do with particle accelerators or nuclear weapons can create a little black hole that eats the Earth.

… are there any good explainations for the apparent excesses of the white hole?

The best accepted current explanation is that most super-bright objects once thought of as possible white holes, and generally called quasars (for “quasi stellar”, or “false star-like”) are actually whole galaxies with large amounts of matter falling toward the supermassive black hole in their centers, and being heated to radiate intensely before reaching them. A galaxy in this condition is said to have an active galactic nucleus. AGNs eventually “blow themselves out”, as their radiation drives the infalling matter away from their nucleus, so galaxies spend most of their time with inactive nuclei. Our Milky Way galaxy currently has an inactive nucleus, a fortunate thing for fragile biological beings like us.