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.

 

There's something wrong with the Big Bang Theory

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
A large amount of anti-matter was used and consumed during the Big Bang, where only traces of it remain in our Universe.




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Technically there should be equal amounts of matter and anti-matter and the universe as we see it shouldn't exist.

For what we see around us we need physics to occur with a measurable amount of charge parity violation. In basic terms, some reactions/decays that matter and anti matter undergo that are identical except charge parity flipped must occur at different rates. This way it is possible to 'neutralize' anti-matter without requiring a 1:1 annihilation.

So do we see it?
Answer - Yes - BUT
Particle physics observes CP violation in the quark sector, the stuff of protons and neutrons and their higher energy manifestations in strange,charm,bottom and top.

BUT - the amplitude of this violation is small, and it is hard to get theoretical models to work and predict anything like what we see in the universe today.

But thats not all game over, there is still the possibility of CP violation in the lepton sector, specifically in neutrinos. Experiments currently are on the cusp of being able to say if CP violation exists in the neutrino sector. (insider information is that the current statistical certainty is a "definite maybe" basically not quite enough for make a claim but looks like with more data, they might reveal the answer)

Now this is the game changer, with quark sector and neutrino sector CP violation, the models work perfectly according to several theorists that iv spoken too down the line. The answer i got was "Its easy, almost falls straight out of the standard model"



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
The Big Bang was probably the initial spark for the creation of organic matter.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86
The Big Bang was probably the initial spark for the creation of organic matter.


Not a "spark" per se, but yeah, it was the creation of EVERYTHING: space, matter (both organic and inorganic) and time itself.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
"Was the Big Bang Just a Black Hole?"



www.universetoday.com...
edit on 16-9-2017 by Erno86 because: deleted a word



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
"The Big Bang And the Big Crunch"

"ANTIMATTER"


www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...
edit on 16-9-2017 by Erno86 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86
"Was the Big Bang Just a Black Hole?"



www.universetoday.com...


Big Bang might be a white hole...In simplistic view -- black holes merge into one, all matter disintegrated into energy inside of it. Next moment it is released into new universe. Why not?)))
lol



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86
"The Big Bang And the Big Crunch"

"ANTIMATTER"


www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...


Not sure about all this anti matter thing. Predominance of normal matter could be explained with a process similar to 'spin'..Matter with know characteristics is predominant because conditions during big bang involved a 'direction' or a 'spin' where only small portion of matter has acquired an opposite 'direction' or a 'spin'. That's why it is uncommon in today's universe.

Bottom line -- anti matter creation was rather an abnormal course of a process of matter forming, hence produced in small quantities.

there))
edit on 16-9-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86
A large amount of anti-matter was used and consumed during the Big Bang, where only traces of it remain in our Universe.


Anti matter was used for what?

What if matter was created uniform and 'counter spin' was because energy outburst demanded more than new space creation could handle...'inflation period'. That's when 'islands' of opposite to general universal 'spin' have formed. Just a thought.
edit on 16-9-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections




"Physicists may find hints as to what this process might be by studying the subtle differences in the behavior of matter and antimatter particles created in high-energy proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. Studying the imbalance could help scientists paint a clearer picture of why our universe is matter-filled."


www.home.cern...



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: greenreflections




"Physicists may find hints as to what this process might be by studying the subtle differences in the behavior of matter and antimatter particles created in high-energy proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. Studying the imbalance could help scientists paint a clearer picture of why our universe is matter-filled."


www.home.cern...


Sure I will wait for LHC to come up with explanation...in a mean time, I am bound to speculate and post it on ATS)))lol..

May be you could insert your own interpretation on any of this? Trust me, it is so cool and relaxing to speculate on topics that are having loose ends. Try it and engage in discussion for real.

cheers and thanks for links.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Just few thoughts about 3D volume forming and particle creation...))

If I assume the following...

Multiple 2D planes (pseudo kind universes) intersect forming mutual points and lines, where each 2D plane has energy fluctuations. 2D plane energy fluctuations seething with energy spikes that we call virtual particles, particles that have never become stable entity. When several 2D planes intersect, there is a moment where spatially individual energy spikes coincide on all, say, three 2D planes...At that moment a real particle is born...on intersect spot where by pure chance three virtual particles merge into one real particle. Then it can travel along intersect line (or lines) in 3D fashion.
Of course there are zillion 2D plane intersection points from zillion 2D universes (energy planes) that together forming familiar 3D space volume.

There is no hard need to devise an experiment to verify that. Subtracting pieces from the whole gives you hint on 'constituting components', right?

there) thank you.
edit on 23-9-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)


to add while I'm on it..Big Bang could be a moment where sufficient in number 2D energy planes have met under 'right' angle values. Large potential at the moment of clash released and continues to release more energy enteraction and more volume forming while 2D planes keep moving deeper into each other.
edit on 23-9-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-9-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-9-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
..just may be, with all that said, studying CMB distribution can give a clue at intersect lines arrangement and predominant direction of space expansion. My be a clever written computer simulation can confirm that.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Study of the CMB has lead to speculation that there are 3 other existent Universe beside ours. A cold spot, Galaxies moving in the wrong direction. As for Universal (sic) answers being found by the LHC and its study of the infinitesimal, I wish them luck with that, however flawed.
Regret that the phrase 'right or wrong' carries too much swagger therefore people occasionally forget the subject content.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Cinnamon

Maybe our universe was actually born from one or more parent universes. As in reproduction. From multiverses.
Strange concept. But.
It might help to go someway to answer the phrase 'something from nothing'. (Which simply doesn't work). As, there would have to be pieces from the parent/s to create the offspring universe. Which would better explain why we do have matter from the big bang.
Sorry if anyone else has posted other ideas like this. I've not read all your thread yet.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 03:09 AM
link   






posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Could the problem with the Big Bang theory be how stupid it is?

The universe starting out that small with all those 'materials' then everything forming from dust? And that doesn't explain black holes...



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: gell1234

I think you misunderstand what the theory actually is. As an argument of the theories 'stupidity' by stating that the universe starts out with materials and dust compressed, is totally not what the theory says. It also shows a lack of understanding of how the physics works at such energy scales. (or doesn't work quite as we expect)



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Physics at energy scales my a$$!

Gone faster than the speed of light yet?

Impossible....

But aliens have?

You're right, I don't understand the Big Bang theory, though I've read a little...I just think 'what will those wacky scientists come up with next?'

It's more likely that we, in our limited human understanding, can't yet understand a concept like 'faster than light travel' or 'where the universe came from/how it started.'

a reply to: ErosA433



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
basing theories of the universe and it's actions, using human intellect of one species, on one small planet, in one small solar system of billions of others, and on one galaxy of billions of others, is truly the definition of arrogance.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join