Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Big Bang

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-21 19:00 ID:LmnW8hZq

Ask me anything about and I'm sure that I can answer it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-30 13:27 ID:0RCoxoeh

bump

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-30 15:18 ID:Heaven

sage goes in the email field

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-30 17:04 ID:RwC44DwX

big bang rebump

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-30 17:57 ID:xAwV7yLP

--I'm too lazy and stupid to understand what you're saying, so I'll just believe god had sex.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-31 6:07 ID:RGsz1K4V

what date did it occur?

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-31 13:11 ID:LEuAZE2M

t=0

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-31 13:55 ID:QT8P0HvQ

>>45
around 17,000,000,000 years ago

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-31 22:58 ID:BpaK1HCa

>>47
Hehe... heh.. nice trolling.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-01 3:16 ID:cTT8x6PU

>>29

1.  At the point of singularity, when talking about the big bang, is all the matter in the universe at a literal point, and thus the sphere it forms is infinitesimal in volume, or does it all simply form a spherically-symmetric body that therefore counts as a "point mass"

2.  What was the "stuff" that the very first point of singularity made out of?

3.  At the point of singularity right before the very first big bang (unless you believe that it is somehow in an infinite loop) all the matter had gathered in one area.  How is this possible without the matter reacting (ie, creating stars, or at higher mass, big banging) BEFORE it reached a point of singularity?  Did it just "spawn" at the point of singularity?

4.  I always here BB theorist talk about use "space" and "the universe" interchangeably.  As I understand it, "the universe" is defined by the matter it contains, and more commonly by astral bodies, and "space" is actually the "stuff" in between matter, ie vacuum.  If my understanding of the terminology is correct, then wouldn't "space" be infinite, or at least much, much larger than "the universe"?  If the universe is expanding, then logically space is what the universe is expanding into.  To use the common example, if one were to think of an expanding balloon as the universe, the surface of the balloon being the outer most matter, then the air, both inside and out of the balloon would be "space".  Is this correct?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-01 13:50 ID:ZTqvW7S3

OP here again.

>>49
You've got it all wrong.  A singularity is not "just a point in space." A singularity is a point in space whose density, mass and size all go beyond the planck scale.  That means that it's impossible to calculate (with our current model of physics) what a singularity actually is.  Of course, you can make observations and mathematical conclusions that use physics similar to the singularities (Things like the event horizon), but it's impossible to determine what's actually "in" the singularity.

Before the discovery of hawking radiation (x-ray radiation coming from a black hole), it was thought that all information that goes into a big bang is lost.  When hawking "discovered" hawking radiation, it was determined that black holes do not lose all of their information.  From what I understand, the contents of the singularity are all just in a state of ambiguity.

And on 4... please kill yourself.
The balloon model is almost like a 2D representation of the universe, but one that curves on itself.  A good way to explain it would be to say that our 3d universe is flat when looked at from a 4th spatial dimension.  It's almost the exact same way. 

The inside of the balloon is irrelevant in every way.

And no, space is not infinite, it simply looks infinite because it "curves" back onto itself.  That's generally what the common understanding is.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-01 14:00 ID:AOiQkB31

>>50
Don't you mean, anything that goes into a "black hole", not a "big bang" is thought to be lost?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-01 14:06 ID:ZTqvW7S3

>>51
Yeah, I should really proof read before hitting reply.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-01 15:20 ID:vyrelAh+

i noes teh thereez!!!11!1!1eleventeen!

I CAME

LAWL WUT

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-01 19:46 ID:qe8rNluV

>>50
I thought Hawking radiation involved the spontaneous appearance of a wave and "anti-"wave of some kind near the event horizon, resulting in one or the other being sucked into the bh, the other escaping. Gravitational energy goes to wave and kinetic energy. How does that involve losing or gaining information? Although, to be fair, I'm not entirely sure what's meant by "information" in a physics sense.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-02 1:12 ID:tmeie7Gz

>>50
Hilarious failure. All information IS lost in a black hole.

In a perfect vacuum, virtual leptons and anti-leptons are constantly being created in pairs and destroyed within the time allotted by the uncertainty principle; when this happens near the event horizon of a black hole, one of the particles gets sucked in and can't re-annihilate the other, so the other particle becomes real and carries away energy from the black hole. It does not carry out information; only energy. This is how a black hole evaporates, and these escaping particles are called hawking radiation. The escaping particle *does not* carry information away; in other words you're completely wrong.

>>49
It doesn't really make sense to think of the big bang as having all the matter concentrated at a single point; rather, space itself consisted of a single point, and all the matter in the universe was *everywhere*. That's why there isn't a point in the universe where we can point to and say "that's where the big bang happened"; rather, the big bang happened everywhere.

This is why the matter didn't react, or form stars or anything like that; there wasn't any space for this to happen, because the universe consisted of a single point.

As for why space suddenly expanded, we don't know yet. There is serious work being done in cosmology right now that hopes to figure that out.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-02 1:30 ID:pJfrNqOy

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-02 15:07 ID:nwseKOK1

Large Hadron Collider

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-02 18:22 ID:Fzj09QUZ

A Christian asked me why matter isn't evenly distributed throughout the universe, while saying that the fact that it isn't “totally defies science”. Please tell me why matter isn't evenly distributed so that I can be better than him.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-02 19:44 ID:EyNoAGMZ

fuck I don't know, he's got us beat

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-03 5:54 ID:G6A3j0Hd

hi maths forum

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-03 8:33 ID:w8+RQJ8R

Divide by zero. Oh shi-

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-03 11:59 ID:roqNyWXw

>>58
Gravity pulls matter to other matter.

Also, in an early universe, when everything was easily effected (or is it affected..) by quantum effects, there were areas of larger gravity density.  The areas of larger gravity density lead to the clumping of areas with more average density of matter than others.  Add that with my first comment, and you get a possible answer for why the universe is in the same shape that it is.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-03 12:00 ID:roqNyWXw

>>62
And by shape, I mean "how the galaxies are separated."

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-03 13:32 ID:2T4O0VvC

What's M-Theory?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-03 16:41 ID:PjVAaaBE

>>64
It is the name of a theory, it was originally going to be called L-Theory, but someone else took that name so they bumped it up a letter.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-04 17:13 ID:DUEJ3RlS

--I'm too lazy and stupid to understand what you're saying, so I'll just go fap to /s/

Name: 4tran 2007-06-04 20:06 ID:+99YmP3R

>>50
You're assuming a closed universe, which we're not certain of yet.  Current data suggests a flat universe.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 2:55

Don't call me gay, but I need some mary jay!

Marijuana MUST be legalized.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-02 0:56

hi

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 10:11

How awesome is Sheldon?

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 10:13

How awesome is Sheldon?

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 12:28

>>70
>>71
he's a gigantic faggot

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-09 15:44

>Ask me anything about and I'm sure that I can answer it.<
Why does your grammar suck?

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-16 5:21

Why is the answer to life the universe and everything 42?

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List