It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creation of the Big Bang Using the Standard Model of Cosmology

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Before we get into it, I have no explanation of what created the singularity that created the big bang.. Your guess is as good as the next. But.. from my opinion, if mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed.. the only logical conclusion is that it just always was. I mean.. you either started with everything, or you started with nothing right? It wasn't created.. it just was.

Imagine everything in the universe began as a single mass. This mass would literally be the largest black hole that ever could exist in theory.

In this state, there was no light... yet.

BUT this state of mass is composed however, of all dark matter, and all ordinary matter. That is to say, 85% of this mass... Is not even capable of absorbing light. All the while.. 15% of this mass, is definitely capable.

Could we assume in this state, this giant black hole, that the singularity had a volume of 0? That is, it took up no space.. because all of space was within it. The mass inside, very large. But the volume? 0? That would imply an infinite amount of mass though. So lets say the volume was.. 1? Making its Mass directly proportional to its Density in every way. If the mass of everything together was 100kg, and with a volume of one (The amount of space it took up.), the density would be 100kg/cm3. Keep in mind, this is pretty much leading up to a small scale big bang. These are just theoretical numbers meant to represent larger scale numbers.

We are also going to assume that the universe is never actually... out of balance just out of order.

So we have this object floating in space.. it is very small..but very massive, there is no light..

Is it rotating? .. I'm going to assume not. But the atoms within the mass are definitely running wild, which gives way to entropy, which may or may not have been the beginnings of the very first object in motion?

In any case.. Be it pressure, entropy, friction.. something within this system, perhaps all forces combined.. created light. (Kind of like how we create fire right?)

This light was created, and either cast out, or what was not cast out got absorbed by the atoms that had the potential to do so.

The act of this absorption would undoubtedly have a very curious affect on the mass at large. Especially considering most of this mass, doesnt absorb light. The atoms would become excited further... creating more friction, creating more heat, creating more light, creating more entropy.. Until and explosion of ultimate chaos and disorder was unavoidable, which we call the big bang, that then formed into the universe we know today.




posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
the probability of a species within this 'system' cognitively capable of deciphering the system which created it, is more staggering than the probability of the said species actually being right on whatever theory it can muster about its origin.

---

but, you are taking a lot of artistic freedom with your hypothesis.
you wouldnt be calculating volume the way you assume. volume could not be 1 ['one' what for starters].

i would be leaning toward that the volume would have to be inversely proportional to density and mass.
upon reaching some critical mass [whatever this maybe] or density, and imploding, volume can then be conceived, or be calculable. singularity could/should not be volumetric by definition.

but from im no physicist, lets assume this is all in layman terms at this point.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
the probability of a species within this 'system' cognitively capable of deciphering the system which created it, is more staggering than the probability of the said species actually being right on whatever theory it can muster about its origin.

---

but, you are taking a lot of artistic freedom with your hypothesis.
you wouldnt be calculating volume the way you assume. volume could not be 1 ['one' what for starters].

i would be leaning toward that the volume would have to be inversely proportional to density and mass.
upon reaching some critical mass [whatever this maybe] or density, and imploding, volume can then be conceived, or be calculable. singularity could/should not be volumetric by definition.

but from im no physicist, lets assume this is all in layman terms at this point.


Honestly, compared to the topic at large, the volume and mas aren't really as important as the concept.. Im not much of a physicist either.. I have no college under my belt at all. But I suppose you're right about that. 1 what? 1 cubic mass of space? lmao idk brother.

Mass 100kg
----------------
Volume 1 MS3 = 100kg/ms3 (100kg per cubic mass of space.)
edit on 19-7-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-7-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   
It should be noted. This happened first then God came and planted our DNA into jungle humans.
Our galaxy is one of the youngest out of the big bang. Maybe the first earth became a few thousand or million years ahead of our time and came here after, they ascended.
This is just a thought, sorry to derail your post. Mods delete this is it's not on topic.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: luciferslight
It should be noted. This happened first then God came and planted our DNA into jungle humans.
Our galaxy is one of the youngest out of the big bang. Maybe the first earth became a few thousand or million years ahead of our time and came here after, they ascended.
This is just a thought, sorry to derail your post. Mods delete this is it's not on topic.


I really dont want to talk about that kind of stuff.. Only to touch on it and say that perhaps the universe is god man..
Think about it.

God always is, and always was right?
Well... The universe always is.. and always was.

God created light? Um.. so did the universe.

God created man? So did the universe.

Earth? So did the universe.

We are all one with God? Well... We all came from this singularity..

God is literally the personification of the universe.




edit on 19-7-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadCat
Well... The universe always is.. and always was.
We can't be sure of that. If the Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago, did the universe exist before that? I don't know, but I don't think we really know and we don't have any reason yet to assume it did.

One hypothesis is that the total energy content of the universe is zero, we didn't really get something from exactly "nothing", maybe just a "quantum fluctuation" is one idea.

If you're not a physicist and you want to hear a physicist's ideas on this here is Lawrence Krauss talking about this concept. We think we have a decent idea of what happened shortly after the big bang but what caused the big bang is still speculative, but his speculation is more informed than yours, so it has a better chance of being right but it still may not be right:

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss


40:30

The universe is flat. It has zero total energy, and it could have begun from nothing.


edit on 2016719 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Actually "if" String theory is correct and the multiverse exist then the big bang and a new universe created is not that hard to visualize.
From a story I played with a few years back:



The Big Bang theory, up until this point, was never able to explain what banged, why it banged, and what was going on, to cause the bang. The theory looked right if you ran the expanding universe in reverse so that all matter was scrunched into a small theoretical point; but try that sometime and see how far you get. The Big Bang looked like the real deal on a theorist chalk board or computer simulation but what were the conditions for the bang and what caused the “BANG” had never been answered.

BRANES:

You could think of Branes as some sort of energy string that has been stretched and flattened into a huge sheet of energy that can have several dimensions connected to its' X-Y-Z (Plus “T” for time) dimensional surface.

No one knows how many Branes there are, only that at least one strong and one weaker Brane has been theorized and now found to exist .

The total extra-dimensional universe, or everything that is, could be like a package of Brane printer paper as far as anyone knows, only the sheets almost never touch. If and when they do touch due to a postulated imbalance of the Dark Matter/Energy gravity wave fields, you get “BOOM” an a new universe is born much like the place we see all around us. In other words this prior hidden dimension where all gravity leaks through into the multiverse has so much energy present on the surface of just one of the Branes it is almost incalculable ; even though there are those who try even to this day on Earth.

“Trust me; when two Branes touch all mathematical hell breaks loose”!

One old earth theory guesstimated the Branes would touch every trillion years or so and are then be repelled back apart to start the whole unending cycle over again.



If that part of "M theory " is correct then as long as the Branes exist the chance of a new born universe will always exist.



Gravity is what holds the Branes of the multiverse close together and Dark energy is what keeps them separated and is where our 4 dimension’s weak gravity and space time are joined.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   
well, ultimately i dont think any theory make a difference.

the statistical probability of a theory version, we come up with, to be actually correct or is exactly what 'it is', is so infinitesimal that it doesnt matter.






eta: then again, this might be the one small chance and our theories are correct.!

there's no possible way a human can imagine something like the what was before the big bang. it doesnt matter how many degrees you have or how smart you are, its physiologically impossible. thats why i personally stopped believing in these sort of theories. M theory, string theory etc...
edit on 20-7-2016 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
well, ultimately i dont think any theory make a difference.

the statistical probability of a theory version, we come up with, to be actually correct or is exactly what 'it is', is so infinitesimal that it doesnt matter.






eta: then again, this might be the one small chance and our theories are correct.!

there's no possible way a human can imagine something like the what was before the big bang. it doesnt matter how many degrees you have or how smart you are, its physiologically impossible. thats why i personally stopped believing in these sort of theories. M theory, string theory etc...


It's not impossible.. I've layed it out for you right here.

using nothing but logic.. and it physically make sense.. How it got there is beyond me, truly. But have not not layed out something comprehensively probable that lead up to the big bang? Without the need for multiple universes, and dimensions. Without wormholes. This is purely based on fundamental fact, in my opinion.

You're telling me that it doesnt make sense that light was created by heat or friction between atoms that are undergoing large amounts of pressure?

You're telling me it doesnt make sense that, because dark matter has been discovered to make up a large amount of mass, that it would not be part of this singularity, along with ordinary mass? Even in the absence of light, dark matter wouldnt absorb it, and ordinary matter would, if light existed for it to absorb.

And you're saying that.. it doesnt make sense that, once light WAS created, that these atoms would absorb it?

You're saying it doesnt make sence that a fundemental change (The absorbtion of light) Would have a very large impact on this singularity?

15% or more of this entire mass is going to act differently with the absorption of light, thats going to cause a huge change in how it acts.. after that, surely it will not be in the same state of order it was prior.

edit on 20-7-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadCat

no to all .
but I don't want to drift your thread.
it makes sense only to us. we couldnt understand it as anything else. there's no actual way to prove any of it true.
that's a different thread.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Hey Dead Cat: I have to say I was fascinated as to entertaining this theory partly bc of your screen name: as in Shoedinger's cat...you are either dead or alive, as your thread addresses, roundabouts.
Despite that acknowledgement, for me, there are too many suppositions, "theories", to assume anything aftermath...in the quantum of what could, did, would have happened.....
We simply don't know, and no how many quarks and muons CERN identifies, we still don't have a quantitate or qualitative answer to any of that, so no where to go from no where.......
Just my musings, my friend. I still enjoy entertaining all the possibilities....
tetra



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: DeadCat

no to all .
but I don't want to drift your thread.
it makes sense only to us. we couldnt understand it as anything else. there's no actual way to prove any of it true.
that's a different thread.


Essentially, at that rate, we cant prove anything is true... only to us.. isnt that what matters? Considering, to us, we are the only ones experiencing it?

All you have to do is imagine the universe in it's current state, but without light.. What would it be? A good analogy is a deep dark cave, and in it are many animals.. (Planets or masses) Now just imagine these animals or planets coming together in a single form.. Or in this case the topic at hand.

Then figure... how did light come to be? After light came to be.. obviously that 15% absorbed it. Creating a state of disorder.


I understand that you are saying WE WILL NEVER KNOW FOR SURE. But if you think about it, scientists back then said no one was able to come up with how the big bang happened, just that it did.. And yet here is this thread.
edit on 20-7-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: DeadCat
Well... The universe always is.. and always was.
We can't be sure of that. If the Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago, did the universe exist before that? I don't know, but I don't think we really know and we don't have any reason yet to assume it did.

One hypothesis is that the total energy content of the universe is zero, we didn't really get something from exactly "nothing", maybe just a "quantum fluctuation" is one idea.

If you're not a physicist and you want to hear a physicist's ideas on this here is Lawrence Krauss talking about this concept. We think we have a decent idea of what happened shortly after the big bang but what caused the big bang is still speculative, but his speculation is more informed than yours, so it has a better chance of being right but it still may not be right:

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss


40:30

The universe is flat. It has zero total energy, and it could have begun from nothing.



The OT state I am refering to.. was 100% mass. Only after the atoms created heat and friction did some mass convert to energy.

If you sum up everything in the entire universe into one singularity, then of corse the theoretical amount of energy at this point would be 0... That is until some of the mass was converted by heat into energy.. which created a state of disorder.

The amount of POTENTIAL energy in the universe was never 0. It was equal to the amount of mass that always existed.

All that mass had potential to be converted into energy.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadCat
It depends on how you define mass. The thinking is that matter, which has mass, condensed out of energy, like photons which don't have mass. The distinction between mass and energy is somewhat blurred anyway since most of the proton mass is composed of energy in the form of gluon fields:

The Big Bang

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang...
For a brief moment after the Big Bang, the immense heat created conditions unlike any conditions astrophysicists see in the universe today. While planets and stars today are composed of atoms of elements like hydrogen and silicon, scientists believe the universe back then was too hot for anything other than the most fundamental particles -- such as quarks and photons.

But as the universe quickly expanded, the energy of the Big Bang became more and more "diluted" in space, causing the universe to cool. Popping open a beer bottle results in a roughly similar cooling, expanding effect: gas, once confined in the bottle, spreads into the air, and the temperature of the beer drops.

Rapid cooling allowed for matter as we know it to form in the universe, although physicists are still trying to figure out exactly how this happened. About one ten-thousandth of a second after the Big Bang, protons and neutrons formed
Energy first, then matter (which has mass), or so the model goes, though I don't think we are sure about the earliest stages of the big bang, but the earliest stages of the big bang were thought to be too hot and too dense for matter as we know it to exist. So if it was in the form of photons as we suspect, photons are massless.

edit on 2016720 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadCat

Ever heard of mass-energy equivalence? Mass is just another way to describe the energy contained in an object (or volume of space).



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: DeadCat

Ever heard of mass-energy equivalence? Mass is just another way to describe the energy contained in an object (or volume of space).


I think it's obvious I have.. XD



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadCat

my hypothesis:
in the time domain dark matter existed and time ticked infinitely fast causing dark matter compression to go beyond the threshold and this caused the big bang to occur spewing what have you into 3 spatial dimensions to become our universe.
so in other words everything in our universe came out of dark matter which resides in the time domain



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
what if there is a form of matter or light wavelength which exist and can explain the big bang or pre big bang, but we can never perceive or observe it. our observations may not at all reflect what is actually happening. its just interpretation based in our senses and their limitations.

no man can imagine what was before;
the absence of light doesn't mean the abscense of matter or creation. removing light from the equation isn't necessarily the state of pretty big bang, its just the limits of what is humanly possible to imagine. anything we can imagine, perceive, observe, or understand is post big bang.
edit on 20-7-2016 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

Ive said so much in my post.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

that's simply how your brain, relative to what you can imagine of matter or dark matter or spatial dimension, can interpret what you've heard, seen, or accept as true.
no human can hypothesize on anything beyond a certain point without reverting back to something which already exists in order to explain.

its not at all about the theory,
pre big bang is not only more than we imagine, its more than we can imagine.
the likelihood of species 'x' coming up with a definitive theory about how it was created is as likely as that theory being correct. its mathematically improbable.
which is why no physicists,no matter how brilliant, will say a theory is the absolute truth. all of our science is relative to us.

what if there is a species out there that says they can exceed the speed of light and here is how. and we can withstand the affect of interstellar travel because we're physiologically different. that would trump all of our maths and sciences, would we then question everything we ever believed? yes. or they tell us here is what matter and anti matter is in a nutshell and we can prove it, and do show humans. everything is relative to us.


the next logical step is to introduce a fallacy because we may not be able to understand some of the explanations those species show us; we would only logically project and deflect and question if the same can be said of the species. are their explanations relative to them as well etc.
that's what our brains would automatically do.
again a different discussion.
edit on 20-7-2016 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join