The "Big" Bang is misleading...

Applied math is weird like that.

I don't know what you were watching, ros, or what a pea has to do with it. The general thoeory of the Big Bang -- as I understand it, and my understanding may be faulty -- is that prior to the event we call the Big Bang there was no such thing as matter (this would negate the 'pea' analogy). All that existed was one concentrated point of energy. There was no space, either, if you can imagine that. (I can't.) The Bang converted that pinpoint of unimaginable energy into matter which expanded to form the present universe. And it is still expanding, according to this model. It was the begining of both time and space. If you have trouble imagining non-space where time or even the concept of time does not exist, where there is no movement, where there is -- in fact -- nothing except this energy -- well, then, join the club. I can't visualize it either. But that does not in any sense mean that the theoory is not true. There are a lot of other things I have trouble imagining, too.

I got the easy part for you... they know it's expanding because they found where it's expanding from.

I picture the bang itself in an empty portion of space (just for the visual) and then a gazillion Mega Ton H-Bomb (made of all the building blocks of life) goes off. So big is the explosion that it's still expanding, billions of years later. I don't feel like I need to know what precluded the space that it's expanding into, or what's outside of it to buy the big bang theory.

Bill -- the problem with your version is that, theoretically, there was no space prior to the Big Bang. There was, literally, nothing.

Details, details. :wink: That's no problem for me. It's just another item on a long list of don't-knows.. I don't know what makes a calculator work, either. It's enough for me that it delivers consistent, predictable results.

The void before and/or outside of space is no easier or harder to get my head around than a singularity. We can't know what takes place beyond an event horizon, and I can't imagine the day we ever will be able to. That being said, what other explanation could replace a black hole at the center of a galaxy?

Granted, we're closer there... as soon as you accept the the formation of a White Dwarf you have to accept Neutron Stars as well which in turn demand that there be Black Holes.

Now, we may well figure out one day that the known universe is as insignificant as our own solar system in the universe. Of course, a discovery as great as that, would only serve to return us to square one. In the mean time; for as long as the big bang continues to deliver consistent, predictable results, I'll continue to accept it, regardless of how much I don't know.

That, in itself, encompasses more time, space, vacuums, and black holes, than all the Big Bang theories rolled into one.

smirk

Sayyy! ..Did anyone watch PBS last night...the show about quantum theory?
It seems they've discovered the smallest matter is arrayed in strings which wobble and vibrate. These strings make up atoms and apparently their discovery has helped unify the 4 forces of nature.

Gus.

I didn't see that one Panz, but I've watched and read quite a bit about string theory. Apparently, its biggest plus is in our inability to design instruments to measure it. Kinda like guessing the color of a room in total darkness...
And, of course, wouldn't one have to ask what that vibrating string is made of?

Get this: In order to make sense of string theory one must adjust to the fact that there may be 10 or eleven dimensions...

If particles cannot be points, what can they be?
They could be little spheres or lumps. They could be little doughnuts, or little strings or string loops, or little pieces of membrane. Of these simpler possibilities the strings and string loops are the simplest alternatives to point particles. It turned out to be a very powerful model.

Strings, like violin strings can oscillate in different ways, thus representing different kinds of particles in a unified way. These strings or string loops are assumed to be of very small size. One must ask then: how small?

What gives a hint how small small is? The only indication physics gives is the so called PLANCK LENGTH. The only length that can be constructed of the fundamental constants of physics is this Planck Length. It is constructed in a unique way from light velocity, the Planck quantum of action and the gravitational constant. This length is incredibly small. If the size of your fingernail were enlarged to the size of the universe, the Planck Length would be the size of a fingernail. (it is realized that this comparison merely shifts the incomprehensibility of the very small to that of the very large).
Collisions between strings no longer have the zero distance problem of point particles and it was expected that there would be no more dreaded infinities in real calculations.

* There are thousands of different point particle theories in principle, with the right ones selected by finding all the conservation laws that nature obeys. However there seem to exist only five types of string theories. These five theories, in order to properly incorporate quantum physic, must be for strings that move in nine space dimensions.

This is a surprising reduction of possible theories compared with point particle theories. Moreover, during recent years, since 1994 it became clear that these five theories in nine space plus one time dimension are actually five different phase, different aspects of one underlying theory, a 11-dimensional theory called the M-THEORY, which I like to call the MOTHER OF ALL THEORIES.
This theory is related to an earlier 11-dimensional theory for point particles that is mentioned in the earlier Tree of theories. These five theory cousins are tamper proof. There is nothing that can be fundamentally changed in these theories. They are unique. This fact holds the promise that one may actually have arrived at the "only uniquely possible theory of everything.

*However, it turns out that this does not mean that we have the HOLY GRAIL in hand. In order to have a theory that gives a world with three expanded dimensions out of a theory written in terms of nine space dimensions, seven of these space dimensions must be curled-up somehow to Planck size. And there it turns out, that there are thousands, perhaps millions of ways in which this reduction to only three extended dimension could be accomplished. The number of possible structure patterns of seven curled-up dimensions appears to be staggering. The important point here is that EACH OF THESE PERHAPS MILLIONS OF WAYS OF CURL-UP LEADS TO A DIFFERENT WORLD WITH DIFFERENT KINDS OF PARTICLES AND DIFFERENT KINDS OF FORCES.

The part I don't understand is the reference to "size" of the Universe, when there was nothing around to measure it against.

The Universe expands/stretches, but so do rubber bands. If you take a length of rubber band and stretch it along a ruler, you can say that it's expanding (getting longer), but if you take away the ruler, and put hash/length marks on the rubber band, and stretch the rubber band, then the hash marks (which are your unit of measure) also expand, so how can you know/say that the rubber band (or the Universe) is any larger or smaller?

ros, I'm not sure I understand your analogy of the rubber band. The present universe may, or may not, be elastic as a rubber band. If one accepts the Big Bang model, there are two future possibilities: the universe will keep on expanding forever, or (the more accepted theory) at some point it will -- almost like a rubber band stretched to its limit -- begin to contract again and, eventually, implode.

Gracias che...that's the Nova show I saw.

Hi Merry, my rubber band analogy was only intended to show how the thing being measured must be measured against something else which is "known". But the Universe can not be measured against anything else because there is nothing else. So I'm not quote sure what it means when an astronomer says that it was 'the size of' something else at an earlier time.

Perhaps quantifiable sizes inside the universe are shrinking. Like the diameter of a proton, or the wawelenghts of radiation from given radioactive isotypes, and the speed of light slowing accordingly.

Perhaps, but how would we know these things, if space itself is expanding (which they say it is).

It isn't just the space between the stars and galaxies which is expanding, it's the space within the stars and galaxies and even within the atoms which is expanding. Space itself, everything, is expanding. So how exactly do we measure the expansion when our foundation for measurement is changing beneath our feet?

But this is a slightly different question from the one I started with. The question of how we determine internal expansion is one thing, but the question of how an astrophysisist can compare the Universe to a Pea (in size) is even worse.

If you could sit right where you are now and run time backwards at a billion years a minute, the Universe would collapse around you with you at its center (because everywhere is the center), but instead of seeing it all shrink, you would shrink with it, and everything would remain in proportion because space itself would be collapsing. All you would see around you would be a change in the general energy level, ultimately intense enough to exceed atomic stability (back near the beginning).

Sorry if I'm not explaining this very well. It's tough in forum form