It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Big Bang Brain Boggler

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:11 AM
I've done it again.
I've sprained my brain trying to get around the big bang theory,problem being this..

IF the universe is expanding to due to a large explosion a wee while ago..

What exploded? You need a catalyst of some description..chemical reaction/heat..matches!!
There was supposed to be 'nothingness' here before.Where did the fuel come from?

I hate you Enceladus,this is all your fault..

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:22 AM

It is hard to imagine the very beginning of the Universe. Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium nuclei formed. The process of forming all these nuclei is called big bang nucleosynthesis. Theoretical predictions about the amounts and types of elements formed during the big bang have been made and seem to agree with observation. Furthermore, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a theoretical prediction about photons left over from the big bang, was discovered in the 1960's and mapped out by a team at Berkeley in the early 1990's.

Big Bang Cosmology Primer
By Paul Shestople, 12/24/97

if the physical laws we know today did not exist at the point of the bb maybe nothing was needed? and if the laws as we know them today did not exist,than who says they cant be broke now?i am thinking of exceeding the speed of light?to many questions for my proton poor brain

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Jbird]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:32 AM

Originally posted by robert204
a theoretical prediction about photons left over from the big bang, was discovered in the 1960's and mapped out by a team at Berkeley in the early 1990's.

The Big Bang Theory received its strongest confirmation when this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson,

I was just reading about that too.

Reference to a 'primeval atom' exploding.
This leads more to a theory I had myself about a 'perpetual universe.'

Think of 'our universe' coming into existence by a 'celestial Einstein' splitting that 'primeval atom'

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:51 AM
I think what bothers me most is how 80yrs worth of scientists can latch onto what amounts to an unproved theory.

Once you take on a theory as unquestionable,it closes your mind to other possibilities.
There is a large amount of evidence for an explosion of unimaginable magnitude.Galaxies/suns/solar systems accelerating away from each other relative to a certain point..But who's to say that explosion was in the 'center' of the universe.

Perhaps it was simply a localized event on a spiral arm of an even larger,undiscovered galaxy/universe.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:33 AM
Love that phrase "sprained my brain" Agent T!!

I know the feeling.If there was a complete absence of everything before the big bang,including laws of physics,then ultimately we are made from "nothing."
Of course the "nothing"turned into something which we recognize as the universe...
Maybe the big bang was responsible,but maybe in a few more years we will have a different accepted theory of what happened at the "beginning."

Brain well and truly sprained here too!

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:59 AM
reply to post by Silcone Synapse

If that hurts,try this..

Space as we know it today(the empty bits) is not a total vacuum.Molecules of elements floating around,recent discoveries of water vapour even.That's not counting the dust,rocks and meteorites etc.

Now look at Encaladus' pic and try to imagine the empty bits in between the objects you can see..
Now multiply that by the largest number you could write if you started now and finished when you die.

Squash that 'emptiness' into a single 'primeval atom'

Remember to leave room for all the stuff that you CAN see

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:18 AM
This is simple....

There was no big bang. Go look at the Hubble ultra deep field picture...

Here's a link...

...what do see in this picture?

Well something like 10,000 fully formed galaxies. We see in this picture a snap shot from about 13 billion years ago. So if the big bang were true we should see galaxies in the beginning stages of formation, yet that's not what we see. If science was truly scientific it would be time to find a new theory, but sense sciences now days is as much politically driven there will be no new theory. Personally I'm content with the Gen. 1:1 account for creation.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by ebe51]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:25 AM
I know buddy it sure is magical.
The Encaladus pic is awesome indeed.
I am not finished looking at the huge one yet,zooming around in photoshop.

op by Agent T"Space as we know it today(the empty bits) is not a total vacuum.Molecules of elements floating around,recent discoveries of water vapour even.That's not counting the dust,rocks and meteorites etc."

That is fascinating-enough of a mixture of elements and chemicals could create incredible different life forms.Some of these "clouds" of matter have been in existence for the life of the earth multiplied by 1,000,000 and beyond.

Imagine what could exist...

I just wish the clouds would sod off so I could have a look with my 'scope...
Mars is good at the moment for me.
Along with NGC1275,on a clear night.
Damned UK weather!!!

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:09 PM
In regards to the creation of the universe,
I think alot depends on what empty space actually is.

a) Was the universe prior to the big bang empty space?
b) Or was the big bang the actual creation of the empty space?

option b implies there was no atom to be spilt, or any possible way for anything to act as a catalyst for the new universe. Which lends credence to the mutiverse and hyperspace theories which are tied in with string theory.

I think the evidence these days is pointing towards option b.
Someone correct me if i'm wrong. Learning is fun.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:30 PM

A perfect vacuum contains NOTHING zilch nada..
No molecules atoms electrons photons light etc.

How would you be able to measure it?
You wouldn't be able to go near it,look at it,listen to it.

Hmmm..But IF you could create one,you would effectively create a source of zero point energy and have a temperature of 0 kelvin to study..SOMEHOW

I'm just gonna go stab my brain with a q-tip

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:52 PM
The Big Bang theory isn't proven, but so are many other things in physics and astrophysics that are taken for granted (e.g. black holes).

The thing is that there is very considerable evidence to support the Big Bang. The best is probably the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation, which agrees very well with the theory. I can't claim to understand it well enough to explain it, but here's a link:" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:05 PM
reply to post by AGENT_T

Thing is Agent,I would have to say that a perfect vacuum contains absolutely nothing,nada,that WE can at this moment detect.
So it may contain something,but we are not quite up to the job of being able to "see" just yet.

Just a thought on your cool Thread buddy.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by Silcone Synapse

Yeah I completelty get that

Just because we can't identify something,doesn't mean it doesn't exist/isn't life for example.

Maybe it happened more along those lines..The nothingness was an altered/higher state that we couldn't even begin to understand..It had to take a crash to de-evolve into our existence.

I think we have more chance of learning about it by looking 'down' into our own molecular world.
I'm convinced we will find our answer(and a universe or two)hidded once we find what makes up quarks,,If they are real too

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:38 PM
Sorry if I appear a bit stupid but does the big bang have to have been a bang. Couldn't it have been some sort of trickle, that gained momentum.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:45 PM

Originally posted by wigit
Sorry if I appear a bit stupid ..

Not at all..
Your theory isn't any less valid as one to suggest an explosion from nothing.

I mean they tell us not to store certain chemicals together for fear of an explosion..
Now I'm starting to worry more about my empty cupboard..It could be the location of a new bang to end this universe.

Your 'Trickle theory' could be validated by a tear in the fabric of space allowing matter to flow from somewhere else.. or a hole like an hourglass with galaxies for grains of sand.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by AGENT_T]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:53 PM
What amazes me is this :

How did those very chemicals of which we speak come into existence?

From nothing?

From the absence of anything?

Are we amazing or WHAT?

We are made out of STARS,which are made out of (possibly)nothing.
Although our version of "nothing" may be another man's"something!!!"

How cool is it to be ALIVE??

What are the chances of that?

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:02 PM
reply to post by Silcone Synapse

HAR HAR HAR.. NOW you're getting to where my brain is at now.
All you have to do next is head into the country on a clear night,lie back,look at the stars and wonder "Why in the heck should I go to work?Who,cosmically speaking,would give a crap?"

This is my secret plan to take over the world through apathy.

Really though.You can sit there,look at your pc and think.. this came from nothing? your car..YOU!!

It drives you crazy.Think of how big you are on the earth..the earth against the sun..the sun from pluto..our solar system in the milky way...finding the milky way in the universe..

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:17 PM
reply to post by AGENT_T

I think I shall have to stop talking to you for tonight,in case it causes both our brains to implode.

You are right on the supreme magic multi dimensional quantum page that I am on.Just where its at.

Keep on looking.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:36 PM
reply to post by Silcone Synapse

Putting it into 'Earthly' terms..

Think how 'lost' you feel when your car breaks down on a quiet road in the country..2 miles away from a main road.. multiply that by infinity..

That's what thinking about an expanding universe does to me.

There must be SO many undiscovered elements floating around..SO many variations on life itself.

We are one inhabited planet in the few that we have discovered..
GIGABAZILLIONS of other galaxies out there.
If you multiply a finite number by infinity also make that number infinitesimal

This very same conversation must be happening somewhere else.
The only difference being..The other AGENT_T has already been and poured himself a large Hot Toddy..mmmm

I do get the current way of thinking.Quarks making up atomic components..rolled together over time to form elements which bundle together to make clouds of gas which explode into suns and form planets.

I can roll snow to make a snowball,but the snow has to be there in the first place.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:59 PM
Hope this makes it a little easier to wrap your head around

form this thread

The big bang was a quantum level event at its instant of begining, a point of no size, erupting energy out into the "universe". It was a very hot(a billion deg K) sea of elemetary particles that expanded rapidly.At about .0000001 seconds after the initial event it cooled enough for protons and neutrons, to anhilate their anti-matter counterparts and condense out. After about a minute the electrons did the same thing. At about 400,000 years after the "big bang" the universe cooled enough for dueterium to form, then gas could start to condense, and stars and galaxies form. Think about the particle velocities required to fill the universe's early moments with particles. This time span, I believe, is why we cant see most of the matter in the universe. In the very early history of the universe it expanded so fast that, the light from most of the universe wont be able to reach us, its just to far away.
I think the "universe", is kind of like an expanding ballon. Where the "universe" as we experience it, all or our three dimensional space, is contained within the surface of the balloon. The expanding "volume", if you will, of the ballon is time. Since the ballon's surface is expanding, any point on the surface will apear to moving away from any other point on the surface. Just like what is observed in the real world.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in