Big Bang theory or Eternal Universe theory,

[jcismyhomeboy]

Understanding the fact that most posters here are atheistic and scientifically inclined i'd like to ask whether they subscribe to the eternal universe theory or the big bang theory and why?

[Asimov]

Understanding the fact that most posters here are atheistic and scientifically inclined i'd like to ask whether they subscribe to the eternal universe theory or the big bang theory and why?

 

eternal universe theory?

[Flyby Stardancer]

I'm a science major and I've never heard of this "eternal universe theory".

[jcismyhomeboy]

I'm a science major and I've never heard of this "eternal universe theory".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know maybe i took to heart a couple of debates that maybe i shouldn't of. I was discussing origins with an atheist one time and he proposed that the Universe had always been. An contrary to popular belief or red shifts or any of that other garbage he felt that the Universe had just always been infinitely. Then i had a couple of more conversations with some others on this website, probably a year ago and they mentioned the same thing. Maybe i just don't have the right name for it.

[Asimov]

I don't know maybe i took to heart a couple of debates that maybe i shouldn't of. I was discussing origins with an atheist one time and he proposed that the Universe had always been. An contrary to popular belief or red shifts or any of that other garbage he felt that the Universe had just always been infinitely. Then i had a couple of more conversations with some others on this website, probably a year ago and they mentioned the same thing. Maybe i just don't have the right name for it.

 

You are getting mixed up.

 

A universe that has always existed is not the same as the "steady state" theory, and is not mutally exclusive from some Big Bang models.

[jcismyhomeboy]

You are getting mixed up.

 

A universe that has always existed is not the same as the "steady state" theory, and is not mutally exclusive from some Big Bang models.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

like hawkings theories of paralell universe births. i forgot what thats called, but are you talking about that kind of big bang model. Because i think that one is based on imaginary time.

[Flyby Stardancer]

The universe has always existed, because when the universe began, so did time. Therefore, there was never a time when the universe DIDN'T exist, thus the universe is eternal.

 

The Big Bang theory is not exclusive to the universe being eternal.

[jcismyhomeboy]

The universe has always existed, because when the universe began, so did time. Therefore, there was never a time when the universe DIDN'T exist, thus the universe is eternal.

 

The Big Bang theory is not exclusive to the universe being eternal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeah i guess your right,

so what do you subscribe to?

[Flyby Stardancer]

How can I "subscribe" to one or the other if it's not an "either or" question?

[Caretaker]

It is possible that the Big Bang, if it indeed happened, was preceded by a Big Crunch of the previous universe.

[Asimov]

like hawkings theories of paralell universe births. i forgot what thats called, but are you talking about that kind of big bang model. Because i think that one is based on imaginary time.

 

There are many big bang models, Some of which state that the universe came out of nothing from a vacuum fluctuation created a singularity.

[Antihero]

Whatever I choose to "subscribe to", it won't affect me, so I will subscribe to whatever theory is currently most scientifically supported (or, in the case of a "draw", I'll say "don't know, don't care").

[spamandham]

There certainly is evidence that supports a big bang theory; red shifts, cosmic background radiation, new deep space photos from Hubble that confirm that more distant galaxies appear to be less developed. Is a big bang the only possible explanation for these? Not as far as I'm aware.

 

To subscribe to the various hypotheses for a multiverse of some kind is a leap of faith today. It's worth hypothesizing and trying to falsify, but that isn't the same as saying "I believe it". David Deutsche's laser experiment does prove there is something we don't understand going on at the quantum level. A parallel universe is a possible explanation, but it hasn't been shown why it's the only possible explanation.

[jcismyhomeboy]

I was wondering if you guys can answer a question for me. We all know about the law of conservation of angular momentum. We also all know that the big bang theory states that a singularity began to expand and spin until all the matter of the universe exploded to become the universe. How is it that there is an opposite spin on planets within our own solar system.

And with regards to red shifts and the expanding universe, how do we reconcile this with the ammendments we are now seeing to Einstein's theory or relativitely. Namely that light is not at a constant speed like he had hypothesized, it infact can be made to move as slowly as 1 km/s in lab tests.

[jcismyhomeboy]

It is possible that the Big Bang, if it indeed happened, was preceded by a Big Crunch of the previous universe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've read that it is actually impossible that the universe came out of a previous big crunch. the texture of the universe as well as the speed at which it is supposedly expanding caused scientists to abandon that theory in the 80s. Also blackholes would have left gaps in the universe from a previous cycle, these are not found.

Be warned i don't know this for a fact, i read it in a text book, and we all know how dead on those can be.

[Lokmer]

And with regards to red shifts and the expanding universe, how do we reconcile this with the ammendments we are now seeing to Einstein's theory or relativitely. Namely that light is not at a constant speed like he had hypothesized, it infact can be made to move as slowly as 1 km/s in lab tests.

 

Relativity deals with the speed of light in a vaccuum - it always has. Einstein knew well that different materials alter the speed of that which passes through it.

 

Next non-sequiter?

-Lokmer

[MrSpooky]

I was wondering if you guys can answer a question for me. We all know about the law of conservation of angular momentum. We also all know that the big bang theory states that a singularity began to expand and spin until all the matter of the universe exploded to become the universe. How is it that there is an opposite spin on planets within our own solar system.

 

In a system of multiple interacting bodies, angular momentum can be conserved if one body is spinning one direction and another is spinning in the opposite direction such that the two momemtum vectors balance each other out.

 

Basic Physics 101.

[Caretaker]

Black holes are nothing more than masses of superdense matter, AFAIK.

[MrSpooky]

And with regards to red shifts and the expanding universe, how do we reconcile this with the ammendments we are now seeing to Einstein's theory or relativitely. Namely that light is not at a constant speed like he had hypothesized, it infact can be made to move as slowly as 1 km/s in lab tests.

 

This is a grossly incorrect interpretation. Light moves at a constant speed IN A VACUUM. It's just that in certain environment, the light interacts with matter such that the light is "slowed down" from a macroscopic perspective. What really happens on the subatomic level is that the light is being absorbed by an atom, and is re-emitted by the atom. It's like tossing a ball... if you throw a ball, it can travel relatively quickly. But if you have to pass the ball between 10 people, the way the ball travels slows down. Each person has to catch the ball and toss it to the next, and that takes time. In the lab, people have learned how to make atoms "hold onto" the light particle for an extended period of time.

 

So light does NOT slow down on its own... it slows down in a different environment, and this DOES NOT contradict our body of scientific data. Accusing scientists of contradicting themselves on this matter is like accusing a car dealer of lying about the max speed of a car as 100 MPH because the fastest you can drive when your car is stuck in mud is 10 MPH.

[MrSpooky]

I've read that it is actually impossible that the universe came out of a previous big crunch. the texture of the universe as well as the speed at which it is supposedly expanding caused scientists to abandon that theory in the 80s. Also blackholes would have left gaps in the universe from a previous cycle, these are not found.

 

Be warned i don't know this for a fact, i read it in a text book, and we all know how dead on those can be.

 

I dunno, up-to-date textbooks in my experience are reliable research tools. They have to be if they're to educate the masses.

 

I don't really trust the Big Crunch hypothesis myself, what with all the observations of Dark Energy and whatnot. The evidence we do have points pretty solidly to a Big Bang, it's just that we don't know what the cause is yet.

[jcismyhomeboy]

In a system of multiple interacting bodies, angular momentum can be conserved if one body is spinning one direction and another is spinning in the opposite direction such that the two momemtum vectors balance each other out.

 

Basic Physics 101.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

but when we're talking about the big bang we have to remember a singularity as being the origin of all matter. Now if that singularity is spinning clockwise, how can anything that comes off of it spin counter clockwise. If i were to spin a kid until i flung him across the room, he'd be spinning the same direction as i was spinning. Isn't that right?

[MrSpooky]

Yes, but you forget to include the fact that the force you put into spinning him has an equal and opposite torque on YOUR body as well. That cancels out the torque you apply on the kid.

 

In a given system, if you add up all the vectors of force, momentum, etc multiple times across a long period of time, you'd pretty much get a uniform set of data.

[Caretaker]

The universe is not perfectly uniform. Perhaps everything was rotating in the same direction from the start, but later on, the matter is going to split into discrete entities, whether they are stars, planets, or asteriods. Now, from time to time, planets and asteroids may collide with each other, causing a force that *may* impede an object's rotation. This may account for planets that rotate in an opposite direction.

 

However, ever notice that planets orbit in the same direction?

[MrSpooky]

Uhhh, Khan, I think that's incorrect.

 

Okay, think about it this way by starting with the conservation of Linear Momentum first. Say you have a rocket ship in space that is not moving from your inertial reference frame. It weighs 100 pounds. Suddenly, it shoots out 1 pound of matter from its thrusters, which travels with a velocity of -100 meters per second.

 

However, because the rocket shot 1 pound of matter from its back end at -100 meters per second, the rocket itself moves forward from the thrust... the rocket now has a forward speed of 1 meter per second.

 

As you can see, the total momentum of the system is observed... since momentum = mass X velocity. The system starts out with a momentum of 0 (the only thing in the system is the rocket ship, which is NOT moving... 100 pounds X 0 meters/second = 0 momentum)

 

When the rocket fires its load, the momentum of the system REMAINS AT ZERO: there are two things in the system, a 1-pound hunk of matter that the rocket shot off, moving at -100 meters per second, and the rocket moving in the other direction at 1 meter per second.

 

(momentum of hunk of matter) + (momentum of rocket) = (total momentum of system)

 

(1 lb X -100 meters/second) + (100 lbs X 1 meter/second) = (total momentum of system)

 

-100 lb*meters/second + 100 lb*meters/second = 0

 

The conservation of angular momentum works the same way.

[Asimov]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_...ngular_momentum

 

I think this is pretty interesting.

 

 

Angular momentum and it's conservation usually has something to do with the "origin". Wouldn't that be a center??

 

And since the universe has no center....how does this apply? Second point, this is a law of physics....the laws of physics break down at the singularity, so who's saying that they have to apply?