'Big crunch' or another 'Big Bang?'
August 16, 2009
Located two kilometers underground in a nickel mine in Ontario, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory consists of a 12-meter-diameter acrylic vessel filled with 1,000 tons of ultrapure heavy water. It is surrounded by almost 10,000 light -sensitive photomultiplier tubes. Credit: Minfang Yeh, Ph.D.
Will the universe expand outward for all of eternity and end in a vast, dark, cold, sterile, diffuse nothingness? Or will the “Big Bang” — the gargantuan explosion that formed the universe 14 billion years ago — end in the “Big Crunch?” Planets, stars and galaxies all hurtle inward and collapse into an incredibly hot, dense mass a billion times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. And then … KA-BOOOOM!!! Another Big Bang and another universe forms and hurtles outward, eventually leading to new iterations of the Sun, the Earth, and you?
A special three-day symposium focusing on the weird subatomic particles that could help answer those compelling questions begins here today through August 18 at the 238th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society.
Titled “The Chemistry and Physics of Neutrino Experiments,” it will include almost two dozen reports on experiments to understand what Nobel Laureate Frederick Reines once termed “the most tiny quantity of reality ever imagined by a human being.” Neutrinos ("small neutral ones") are among the subatomic, or elementary, particles that make up all matter. They have no electric charge, virtually no mass, and pass through ordinary matter without causing any disruption.
Most neutrinos traveling through Earth come from the Sun, and trillions of solar electron neutrinos pass through every person each second. Although those properties make neutrinos difficult to detect, detecting and understanding them are key scientific pursuits, partly because of the implications for cosmology.
“The neutrino has the smallest observed mass for any elementary particle, but they appear in such astonishing numbers in the universe that they are a large portion of its mass,” said Steven Elliott, Ph.D. He is a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. “At the moment, neutrinos may be massive enough to account for more mass in the universe than all stars combined.”
Provided by American Chemical Society (news : web)
Jul 27, 2004 |
not rated yet |
0
THis all assumes that the so called "Big Bang" theory, accepted w/o question by consensus physicists et al, is correct (in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary).
Please share the source for your claim if you would be so kind.
It means with observation at distance our Universe vanish and it seamlessly switches to Universe of another observer, for whom our Universe would appear fuzzy in the same way, like our Universe appears in Hubble ultradepth field. Such perspective may appear repetetive like bubbles of foam - but in fact it never repeats exactly and our Universe has an infinite number of pasts and futures, which actually depend on particular observer.
I have figured out and show how the big bang happens.
Before the big bang there was an infinite long single
dimension of string, then this string went bang all along it's length( I call it a string bang) thus producing the additional 3D expanding universe:
For a partial preview see:
http://cosmicdark...ics.html
See also what dark matter really is.
http://www.aether...ples.jpg
IMO analogous effect creates an illusion of dark matter during spreading of light (and another waves, including those, which forms particles of matter) through density fluctuations, responsible for CMB field: the light appears like it spreads through more dense vacuum, which surrounds the source of radiation (i.e. dark matter).
The same effect is responsible for Hubble red shift when being observed from inside, so we can experience light dispersion into CMB at cosmologic scale. Basically it corresponds the dispersion of light in foggy atmosphere in situation, we are formed by density fluctuations of this atmosphere, too and visibility scope corresponds the observable Universe size. From this model follows, dark matter manifests by weak deceleration eqaul to product of Hubble constant and speed of light, which agrees well with deceleration observed in Pioneer spacecraft anomaly.
http://cosmicdark...ics.html
Tissa- you might want to check on the completeness of your article before you cite it.
Also, you would expect that any initial expansion/inflation event would leave some evidence of the event, as most matter would necessarily have been propeled outward(radiated) from that initial point(Big Bang) or axis(String Bang)- do you have any evidence of this?
Herein you make the classical conceptual error that there was something propelling the universe. The hot big bang theory is stating that the ENTIRE universe began with the initial event. There was no propellent that gave a "push" to the universe in order to expand it. Spacetime was formed through the big bang so there was no expanding into something{no spacetime} but rather the expansion of spacetime from a state of extreme temperature and density in which everything in the universe we now observe {and much of what we don't} was contained.
WarHacks: the Big Bang theory makes no such claim. Rather, it claims that the universe existed as a singularity (or as an ultradense mass of strings) billions of years ago. It makes no claims as to where that singularity came from; and I'm not aware of any scientists who claim it came "from nothing". In fact, there is a popular sentiment that it came from a previous Big Crunch. And as for where it all ultimately came from -- that's a matter for theology, not science. So don't worry -- the Big Bang theory still leaves plenty of room for God. In fact, many physicists and cosmologists are led to a belief in God through their studies (i.e. because the laws of physics are "too perfect" to be accidental.)
On second thought, some things are just better the first time, off-the-cuff-like.
I have always thought physics and humor go nicely together, right Mr. Feynman?
Had some kind of neuro-regressive event there-I remember quite well the answer I got the first time I brought up that concept in Jr. High. Teacher's response to me was almost verbatim.
Atrophy through disuse,I suppose-
hope everyone got a good laugh out of that. It's crackin' me up right now!
Warhacks, You could at least show us enough respect to read and understand the theory before you attack it.
Theories based of homogeneous space are lazy.
Use of particles to describe space is antiquated.
This symposium will report nothing helpful.
There were those who said the same of heliocentrism. And of the "round Earth" theory. (Not to mention evolution...) But if you have evidence, then by all means present it.
Onthological problem of BB hypothesis is, it brings more questions, then answers. It can "explain" red shift, but it cannot explain dark energy. And it requires mysterious inflation.
Therefore we can apply dispersive model even to the outer Universe boundary and everything would become more consistent and simple. From abstract point of view here's no big difference, if we are seeing big bang or event horizon in fuzzy distant past of our Universe. In my opinion these two models are equivalent mutually with dispersion model of Universe - they just differ by their observational perspective.
Which indeed doesn't mean, we shouldn't try to find observational differences between these models in independent way, despite of various theories.
But what if these two perspectives are equivalent in fact. We can explain black hole formation by clashing of branes as well - it would mean, we are describing by black hole evolution the evolution of our private Universe. We should simply put a boundary between insintric and exsintric models for the sake of their consistency and supersymmetry. Which part of Universe we would consider as our Universe generation and which part is a parallel Universe already is mostly matter of intersubjective discussion, because our scope of view is extending gradually. Before one hundred years our scope of view was limited to stars inside of our Galaxy.
Actually, I think new science begets new religious dogma. Eventually, though, it breaks down and new science begets new dogma.
That's the path we've taken for thousands of years, and the path we'll be unlikely to extricate ourselves from for some time.
Deal with it, find new evidence, present new theories, and move on to new dogma.
So that the evolution of human understanding just follows the appearance of observable reality. The question is, if we are required to handle these intermediate stages like dogma, when we know already, how such stage arises and when we can interpret them in many plural ways, which may lead to new predictions occasionally.
We should be more flexible, yet consequential in thinking. The description of things from various perspectives doesn't mean vagueness, on the contrary: just putting exact unbiased relation between observational perspective and its result of observation ("if we are thinking/observing in such and such way, then the result will be such and such").
For example, if we are observing Universe from inside, it appears like expanding space-time whose size is limited by speed of light. If we would observe Universe from outside, it would appear like condensing and collapsing black hole and we can compare it to stellar evolution. If we apply intermediate perspective, Universe appearance will be driven by dispersion of energy in inhomogeneous environment full of nested density fluctuations and we can derive another things from it. And so on...
I presume, it's quite conscious, adult approach to various concepts, in which observable reality can be described. Everyone can choose paradigm of its personal preference without need to fight blindly with another perspectives and theories based on them.
So if we consider Universe size and age limited, we can derive another connections by using of light speed and so on. This doesn't mean, universal approach is wrong - but it's often too remote from everyday particular human experience - just because it's too general. It's logical - general approach requires to describe things from remote perspective under risk of lost of details and vice-versa: too formal approach tends to become divergent and misleading from more general perspective.
http://www.space....ive.html
Seeing as you jsut inadvertently confirmed that you are slotin in addition to alexa, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to pass 5 rank on yourself?
And you're Alizee as well, so there really is only one AWT hypothesist on physorg.
Duplicitous of you in the least and certainly disingenuous.
Unfortunately for you that's incorrect. I am simply me. That and if you look back you can see I've had conversations of disagreement with both, while you, you, and you complete each others' discussions and 5 rank all around.
As an aside to that you can see dramatic differences between our styles of writing while you can't change your rythym of converse. It's a common analysis technique when it comes to certifying author or authors.
-Feynman
QED
See"Universe Expansion by Blackbody Radiation" at www.nanoqed.org
No, I am velanarris, I am not vanatomic nor am I otto. Seeing as you can't even keep the names of the person you're debating with straight, I'm guessing you don't have the cognitive ability to mathematically describe your AWH.
A good question would be: How does the energy cause such a severe warping of space time? What kind of energy is it?
Maybe a question for the future would be, could we synthesize a similar or weaker energy of the same kind that can be used to bend / squeeze space time together at a lesser level to assist with space travel?
So in AWH there's a method for vacuum to become a denser vacuum. This just gets better and better.
You understand what the term "vacuum" is, correct?
Do you believe, electron is made of amber, just because it was named so?
What?
And by the way, I am vantomic and no one else. Seeing as you must have multiple accounts I guess you would think others would partake in such a malicious action as well. Drugstore psych 101, but I couldn't resist.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3381
"We do not understand the disparity. In my opinion, it is the biggest and most profound gap in our current understanding of the physical world.... The solution to the problem might require inventing entirely new ideas, and abandoning old ones we thought to be well-established. Since vacuum energy density is central to both fundamental physics and cosmology, and yet poorly understood, experimental research into its nature must be regarded as a top priority for physical science."
The true is, is some anonymous troll doesn't know, what the vacuum density is and it even considers such concept ridiculous, he of course can never ever find solution of this problem, being separated in many dimensions from actual problems of contemporary science.
This is not rocket science, but quite common behavior of every particle environment. It's virtually unbelievable, nobody from mainstream science has actually propose it - but it still understandable with respect to widespread religious disbelief into Aether concept. It turns out, these scientists simply cannot understand behavior of most trivial physical systems, like fluid or dense gas and their mutual symmetries. They weren't trained in it, because they spend whole their life with formal equations.
That is a discussion of energy density, not physical density, which your ideology prescribes.
Second, cut the crap with the double downrank, we know all 3 of you are the same person. You're propagandizing again.
So you don't understand what E=mc^2 means either.
Energy density and matter density are not equal things. Using E=mc^2 you can determine the energy content of a physical body in motion. Conversely you can use E=mc^2 to determine the amount of matter density a certain amount of energy in a single location can yield under compression.
You cannot say that matter and energy are the same thing. This is akin to saying steam and ice are the same thing when they display very different properties due to energy content.
You are far from a physicist, in addition to this, your "theory" is unsupportable by your own admission. Your continued self ranking is telling of how tenuously you understand mathematics and physics as you require your "legion" personality to back up your sparsely explainable view of hydrodynamics as applied to the fabric of reality.
As I've said before, you want to prove me wrong, put some numbers up.
"Look Galilo, my theory can compute eclipses and conjunctions EXACTLY - while you're just babbling some BS about Venus phases. Hey, just show me some hard numbers first."
In fact you personally even have no hard numbers, just your opinion bespoken in free sentences - so I'm not obligued to give you some numbers at all. You've some vague theory about how universe is working - well, and I've my theory as well. I've no need to prove you wrong, just because AWT can explain even your classical stance. I can understand exactly your problem...;-)
I don't have any theory for how the universe functions, therefore I have no need of numbers.
You're insiting the reality I can see, feel, and otherwise observe with my senses exists within the quantum foam of black hole ejecta.
You have the hypothesis to prove, therefore you need to "show your work".
We might be able to add ghidon to the list of Zephir's sockpuppets, although strangely ghidon is much more likely to rate Slotin and Alizee than Alexa.
By your own admission, Galileo used observational evidence to prove the math he put into the heliocentric model.
You've done nothing other than use large words, because you're obviously well read regardless of your understanding of the material, to exemplify an untestable hypothesis.
Scientist you are not.
Well unfortunately you have neither going for you.
Sockpuppets to left of them,
Sockpuppets in front of them
This thread is appalling. One person with three logins giving itself attaboys and its opponents low ranks.
Do you find this self congratulation satisfying Alexa?
I find it more evidence that you simply don't have anything going for you. So you get a bunch of ones and your opponents are getting a bunch of fives. I usually leave you alone but this sort of ill behaviour deserves it.
Ethelred
Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.
From QubitTamer's fake profile
Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.e
Not the same thing but the gravitational effects are the same. The energy of vacuum that the Standard Model produces is indeed WAY too high. Space would be radically curved instead of pretty much flat. I think the numbers come from vacuum fluctuations which has been an indication to me the vacuum fluctuations need a major overhaul.
Kind of reminds of a scene in The Mask.
Of course none of this supports AWT since it has NO numbers of any kind. Perhaps its just a way to avoid testing. Alexa can thus claim anything and support nothing.
Ethelred
Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.
From QubitTamer's fake profile
Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.
That's blasphemy against the holy church of AWT.
How dare you indulge in defamation of it's mathless quantum foam.
Just the mathless part.
I kind of like the idea of a granularity to the Universe and I don't like the idea of a grid system so a foam or something like it at the plank level seems reasonable. The only reason my likes and dislikes have any meaning on this is because its all pure speculation. Of course I saw this idea before I saw AWT.
I can go with a purely field system as well. I see them as being potentially compatible in any case. As long as we don't have any theory at the plank level we can get away with almost anything. Its Not Even Wrong. Which I have a lot less problem with than Dr. Woit does. Perhaps its my lack of a degree.
Ethelred
Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.
From QubitTamer's fake profile
Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.
The idea that (superstring) physics at scale 1/R to identical to that at scale R where 1 represents the Planck length has been used elsewhere to imply that Planck's length is a minimum and that as size (R) reduces to below 1, 1/R gets bigger than 1 and effectively one is bounced back above the Planck length barrier. So nothing passes through the barrier.
But can the 'bounce' idea be replaced by interpreting it as the physics below the Planck limit (at R) is just like the physics above the Planck length (at 1/R) where R is less than 1. Ie the physics below the Planck length is just like the physics above the Planck length? Is the bounce interpretation the only and right one? Or is the equivalence instead suggesting a fractal universe?
So if you're wrong on a long term perspective, because your theories are nothing more than the rantings of someone who knows a little bit about fluid dynamics, what will your course of action be then?
If you can't support your pet hypothesis, then you'll never be right from a long term perspective. A brilliant physicist could come up with something exactly like your AWT, but if he can do the math and prove it, he's right, and you're STILL WRONG. To be right, you have to prove your work empirically, observationally, and experimentally. So get to it, or vanish until you can.
And the shitty animated gifs and poor models sans source code are not any type of proof.
After then I don't know, why to refuse such concept, if it can explain many things at the same moment and it violates nothing, what we know about vacuum and particle word so far. It's just another step forward in human understanding of reality - no less, no more. This is not rocket science, just a trivial logics. If we didn't analyze this trivial model before, it's just time to do it now. Research is too expensive and we don't understand too many things about Universe to ignore such ideas just from religious reasons. Are we conscious creatures or not?
So I will continue to counter rate all people that are getting these childish rating from the AWITBS group. And that is a pretty radical assumption that is a group and not just one person with three handles.
I recommend that all others that have been rated down by the Alexa/Aleeza/Slotin Triumvirate/multilogin give them back exactly what they give.
Ethelred
Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.
From QubitTamer's fake profile
Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.
I liken you statement above to a Vatican release statement in support of the Vatican. It's all bullshit, and it's all bad for you.
I hate to treat my little bag boy this way after all my attempts to reform him, but sometimes a broken egg is a broken egg.
Indeed I do. What I don't do is lie about being a physicist. What a troll. But you are MY troll till the end of the month. Thank you for it so very clear to everyone that you are owned.
I don't lie about others either. Unlike Grendel here. How is your mother. Is she still staying in the lake?
Indeed I hate PCs so much I have owned one kind or another since 1979.
Lying is for life and death and Grendel is neither.
What bigger boys? As a Beowulf I ripped their arms out of their sockets. Want your arm back Grendel?
And sometimes Trolls lie more than usual.
All this begging won't help. You WILL stay in my sig till the end of the month.
Ethelred
Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.
From QubitTamer's fake profile
Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.
Ignorance is its own reward oh green and scaly one.
So a troll lied. What else is new?
That at an exceedingly ignorant troll lied about.
You lied and that is all that matters troll.
I always do. It is you that has the comprehension difficulty. You don't even know what a troll is. Or how stupid it is to lie in a flame war.
This silly self-defeating flame war of yours will not get you out till the end of the month.
And I am not giving your arm back. It will stay over the door where it belongs.
----------------^===
QubitTroll's Arm ===
----------------~===
Ethelred
Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.
From QubitTamer's fake profile
Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.