Big Bang Theory

Ok, I'm in with the big bang theory, because mostly the backround radiation is as close to proof as we ever will have (in our lifetimes anyways) to the beginning of the universe 300,000 billions years ago.

liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov...

My big question, even if the big bang didn't happen. We still have a 'Universe', where exactly is this universe? Is it in a 'Megaverse' of some sort with numbers of 'Universies'?

Because the way I've seen everything the smaller we look down to molecular size, the more it resembles the way everything works, just like everything else. (I think I just confused myself...) I guess what I'm saying no matter if your an electron or a galaxy, you still have to follow the same rules, and everything just keeps getting bigger. whats to say we dont live in some miniscule particle, that lays in some theory of some other ridiculed scientist? And him as well, and so down the line?

Please let me know if this makes any sence at all....lol



[edit on 8-2-2006 by jta79]

It seems obvious that not everything 'follows' the 'same' rules.

Asking a philosophic question as to whether there are 'Megaverses' or Inverses will not satisfy. What research have you done, what literature have you read to suggest you know what you are talking about?

What have you seen or studied at the molecular size?

What is your basis for any of these claims?

Originally posted by jta79
Ok, I'm in with the big bang theory, because mostly the backround radiation is as close to proof as we ever will have (in our lifetimes anyways) to the beginning of the universe 300,000 billions years ago.

liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov...

My big question, even if the big bang didn't happen. We still have a 'Universe', where exactly is this universe? Is it in a 'Megaverse' of some sort with numbers of 'Universies'?

Because the way I've seen everything the smaller we look down to molecular size, the more it resembles the way everything works, just like everything else. (I think I just confused myself...) I guess what I'm saying no matter if your an electron or a galaxy, you still have to follow the same rules, and everything just keeps getting bigger. whats to say we dont live in some miniscule particle, that lays in some theory of some other ridiculed scientist? And him as well, and so down the line?

Please let me know if this makes any sence at all....lol

[edit on 8-2-2006 by jta79]

Firstly the universe is generally accepted to be from 12-14 billion years old, not 300,000 billion. As for your question there is no evidence moreover any method to test your theory scientifically so its not really worth asking IMO.

Originally posted by Distortion

As for your question there is no evidence moreover any method to test your theory scientifically so its not really worth asking IMO.

He actually isn't proffering a theory, he's asking a question. And I personally think it's a very interesting question. And I believe he has pointed to the evidence he sees to lead him to ask the question. Just as an electron has given states of energy it can reside at (i.e. orbits) so do planets have given orbits they must reside in based on their individual properties. And so on to galaxies.

I think Jta79 is trying to ask about a unifying theory.

Jta79, the forces that hold atoms together is different than the force that holds solar systems and galaxies together. It's gravity for the big things, and EM, Strong and Weak nuclear forces for he small things. Unfortunately there is no solid evidence of a unifying theory yet, but scientists are getting closer. Some propose that string theory is the pot of gold, but there is yet to be any evidence other than mathematical to prove it's real.

If you get the chance read "the Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. Or, if you just want a quick breakdown of it, rent the Nova documentary of the same name.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
If you get the chance read "the Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. Or, if you just want a quick breakdown of it, rent the Nova documentary of the same name.

Why rent when you can watch it for free via PBS Website

www.pbs.org...

What if the universe exist's in nothingness? For most, nothingness is a very hard concept to grasp because they live within something, so they ask "how can there be nothingness!?". Yet we can accept giving the value of zero (0) to mean, nothing. We don't know what medium the universe exist's in, if there is a medium, or if it truly is nothingness. But as we now know, atleast within our universe, the vast emptiness of space was once thought to contain this very nothingness, now we're at the understanding that it's not nothingness, it's a sea of energy, virtual particles popping in and out of existance. This is the theory of quantum mechanics. Perhaps our universe reside's within such a sea of energy, and as M-Theory show's, this sea of energy could have become concentrated and collided with another like object resulting in the big bang. This has only been shown to occur on paper, but based upon our understanding of physics we know of today.

Sorry if I didnt explain that I wasnt proposing a theory Frosty, and Distortion. But the others here seem to have grasped what I was trying to ask... Thats my big thing. The concept of existing in a nothingness is what is confusing me, because if there is this universe 'here' why couldnt there be one somewhere else, or even multiple universies in a single 'nothingness'?

You know, the funny thing is in the past... the more I study something the more clear it becomes, but in this case the more I study and research, the more confused I get



Because if the big bang did exist, that that means that our universe is finite, or could the backround radiation just be distorting whatever may be on the other side of it that we just cannot see past?

Puzzled...

P.s. Thanks Sardion2000 for that excellent link... Havnt watched any yet, but just by looking at the page its going to be a great wealth of knowledge!!! Thanks!

And i'm not necisarily looking for exact answers on anything, just a variety of hypothesies. The question I asked was supposed to make you think and answer what you think about the place/medium in which we exist.

[edit on 9-2-2006 by jta79]

[edit on 9-2-2006 by jta79]

Firstly the universe is generally accepted to be from 12-14 billion years old, not 300,000 billion. As for your question there is no evidence moreover any method to test your theory scientifically so its not really worth asking IMO.

Ok, thanks for the universe age correction. That is appreciated, I misread the nasa info on it, they say from 10 to 20 billion years ago. But as for questions not being worth asking? The only questions not worth asking are the ones that you already know the answer to, and there is even exceptions to that rule!

It's gravity for the big things, and EM, Strong and Weak nuclear forces for he small things.

What are the differences/characteristics between these forces and gravity? Is gravity an actual particle (gravitron) as speculated by some or some sort of wierd mixture of some other forces?

[edit on 9-2-2006 by jta79]

[edit on 9-2-2006 by jta79]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Jta79, the forces that hold atoms together is different than the force that holds solar systems and galaxies together. It's gravity for the big things, and EM, Strong and Weak nuclear forces for he small things. Unfortunately there is no solid evidence of a unifying theory yet, but scientists are getting closer.

As a followup, atoms and small particles use Quantum Mechanics to explain their physics, while the Big Stuff in the Universe can be explained well with Newtonian Kinematics.

Atoms and electons can only exist in specific states. This means that an electrons can only take up specific sizes and shapes of orbitals, and can only possess specific amounts of energy in their orbitals.

Planets can be as close or as far from the Sun as their masses can handle. Their physics are more loosey-goosey than quantum mechanics.

However, I guess once you rewind the Big Bang and its math back to the first few seconds, nothing makes sense. Some stuff can be explained with quantum mechanics, some with Newtonian kinematics. Only once we get a General Theory of Everythingness, that's when we can explain stuff better.

EDIT: Rasobasi420, I gave you a Way Above vote solely because you have the best avatar in the world. The only perscription is more cowbells!

[edit on 9-2-2006 by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama]

Originally posted by Valhall

Just as an electron has given states of energy it can reside at (i.e. orbits) so do planets have given orbits they must reside in based on their individual properties. And so on to galaxies.

I think that was an incorrect comparison on his part because he stated that the two follow the same rules. To my knowledge they most certainly do not. Celestial mechanics is explained by Newtonian mechanics while explinations for the behaviour and characterstics of an electron are defined by quantum mechanics. Albeit, the perihelion of Mercury is explained by Einstein's relativity.

The concept of existing in a nothingness is what is confusing

I would agree. The Greeks argued "How can there be a vacuum when 'be' contradicts the existance of a 'vacuum'. I think it is a great philosophical debate, but I am unfamiliar as to the science behind 'vacuums'. Even the best vacuum chambers in the world leave small traces of particles.

Originally posted by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Jta79, the forces that hold atoms together is different than the force that holds solar systems and galaxies together. It's gravity for the big things, and EM, Strong and Weak nuclear forces for he small things. Unfortunately there is no solid evidence of a unifying theory yet, but scientists are getting closer.

As a followup, atoms and small particles use Quantum Mechanics to explain their physics, while the Big Stuff in the Universe can be explained well with Newtonian Kinematics.

Atoms and electons can only exist in specific states. This means that an electrons can only take up specific sizes and shapes of orbitals, and can only possess specific amounts of energy in their orbitals.

Planets can be as close or as far from the Sun as their masses can handle. Their physics are more loosey-goosey than quantum mechanics.

However, I guess once you rewind the Big Bang and its math back to the first few seconds, nothing makes sense. Some stuff can be explained with quantum mechanics, some with Newtonian kinematics. Only once we get a General Theory of Everythingness, that's when we can explain stuff better.

EDIT: Rasobasi420, I gave you a Way Above vote solely because you have the best avatar in the world. The only perscription is more cowbells!

[edit on 9-2-2006 by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama]

Thanks for your explanation!! This helps a bit, but like you said if we go back to the first few seconds after the big bang, there HAS to be some underllying commonality between then dosnt there? Especially if it was all created by one event? On a nother note, wasnt Einstein trying to unify gravity somehow to EM forces?

Also what are the nuclear 'strong' and 'weak' forces? In know that even physics textbooks talk about these, but what exactly are they?

Originally posted by jta79 there HAS to be some underllying commonality between then dosnt there?

It is unknown.

Also what are the nuclear 'strong' and 'weak' forces? In know that even physics textbooks talk about these, but what exactly are they?

You should try reading one of those textbooks. Weak forces hold the nucleus together. But this is very non-specific, generic, Jeopardy! information.

I haven't learned too much about atoms and stuff like that but what if the sun is the nucleus and the panets are the electrons in a much MUCH bigger world. And the atom in our world is really just another smaller solar system. So it keeps getting smaller and is a chain of never-ending atoms.

Again I haven't learned much about atoms so if this is completely wrong then sorry.

From what i've learned from various scientists who went on the science channel, there are multi universes, and each universe in within a massive membrane, this theory was formally known as string theory but is know known as m theory or membrane theory.

Each universe or membrane is different, some has craters in them, some are round, some are oval, and some are donut shaped.

They believe the big bang happened by two universes which collided together, meaning the ends were bumped, which released various kinds of gaseous/energetic chemicals into the universe we are in and created various kinds of matter.

each universe isn't straight on the end, it is rippley. Read more below.

Also they mentioned that our gravity is so weak, they believe gravity is being fed to our planet. that was off topic but still i thought id mention it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by TrueLies
From what i've learned from various scientists who went on the science channel, there are multi universes, and each universe in within a massive membrane, this theory was formally known as string theory but is know known as m theory or membrane theory.

Each universe or membrane is different, some has craters in them, some are round, some are oval, and some are donut shaped.

They believe the big bang happened by two universes which collided together, meaning the ends were bumped, which released various kinds of gaseous/energetic chemicals into the universe we are in and created various kinds of matter.

each universe isn't straight on the end, it is rippley. Read more below.

Also they mentioned that our gravity is so weak, they believe gravity is being fed to our planet. that was off topic but still i thought id mention it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok, the concept of gravity being fed to our planet, which would mean its being fed to everything in the grandness of our 'reality' (didnt want to say universe anymore, now it seems so small ) Is this being fed to us through a different dimention sort of thing? Would that mean that the Higgs boson is almost like a portal transfering a gravitational affect from one place to another?

Another question that comes to mind, if the space in a universe can be warped over itself to be abled to create a wormhole from one place to another, does that exclude a possability of creating a wormhole to another universe? If you could, in my mind the 2 universes would have to co-exist in the same space to be abled to bend them over eachother.


Quote from Shadowshocker163

I haven't learned too much about atoms and stuff like that but what if the sun is the nucleus and the panets are the electrons in a much MUCH bigger world. And the atom in our world is really just another smaller solar system. So it keeps getting smaller and is a chain of never-ending atoms.

Again I haven't learned much about atoms so if this is completely wrong then sorry.

This is kind of what i was asking before (a more clearly worded version though)
Thanks Shadowshocker163.



[edit on 9-2-2006 by jta79]

[edit on 9-2-2006 by jta79]

I think that it would be cool to use gravity as a communication device between universes. Because it's a closed string it isn't limited to our membrane. If that's the case, maybe we could alter it in some way to communicate. That is if there is anything to communicate with.

If you could, in my mind the 2 universes would have to co-exist in the same space to be abled to bend them over eachother.

Well, let's imagine that a multiverse does exist, but exist's in the same medium our universe exist's in. So, in other words, a group of universes would look no different than a group of galaxies within our spacetime bubble. So, given that, a wormhole, or as other's have come up with other theories showing how a blackhole could also place you in another universe. There are even theories showing that blackholes could actually be baby universes!

Too much talk about multiverses, megaverses, etc.

It is time for ATS to separate itself from the crowd. Let's work on my latest theory: Inverse. Universe of which everything here is the inverse.

Take it from there...

Originally posted by Frosty
Too much talk about multiverses, megaverses, etc.

It is time for ATS to separate itself from the crowd. Let's work on my latest theory: Inverse. Universe of which everything here is the inverse.

Take it from there...

Give us a little more insight into your concept and for sure I'll try.

I think collective thinking is the way of the future! No concept should be turned away without first thouroghly seeing it through to the best of our comprehension. String theory comes to mind with that, how first everybody ridiculed it for its imperfections, but at the same time it does explain alot. And now the string theory(ies... 1 through 5) are the big thing.

Also....

I have read and watched a bunch of stuff, and I do see where you ppl are coming from about the 2 totally different sets of rules. And as I stated before the more I read the more confusing, yet more informed I was. Just kind of ironic is all.

My question now, does/how does string theory conflict with what we know about particle physics, because the discovery of new particles all the time, kind of punches string theory in the gut every time a new one is found.

And another question, about the atomic strong force. Ive looked around a bit and I cant find much on what the processes here could be. Because if energy can never be created, only transfered... Well, the strong force is always exerting its force to hold all of the molecules togeather. where is it geting its energy?