Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Creation and the big bang

Options
  • 27-08-2008 3:18pm
    #1
    oceansize
    Closed Accounts Posts: 257 ✭✭


    Hey all, brand new here.
    Been reading up a bit on astronomy, and i have to say as a newbie i'm staggered at the way things actually are. Like when i'm reading about it i start to sweat and get nausious?

    The colossal scale on which the universe just from out perspective is unfolding to be has my mind boggled.

    Two questions that are upsetting me more then any others,

    The Big Bang theory has, all energy, matter, light in the universe already existing in a singularity point, then it somehow became unstable and so this infinitely small point expanded into the gargantuan universe that we know today (or know a small portion of) right?

    Q1) Where did the infinitely small point that held all matter/light/energy come from?

    Q2) And when it did start to expand, what was the area it expanded into?

    Also, do you think we perceive space to be so vast due to our measurement system? our own galaxy is possibly to vast in size for us to ever be able to physically be able to catapult anything such as recording or photographic equipment outside of while we humans inhabit the earth, is it possible that if there is "life" elsewhere is it possible that it's so massive in size that we can't see it? Kinda of like if you were a germ at the bottom of the ocean? wouldn't the ocean seem equally as vast as the bit of universe we know of, and be equally as baffling to the germ, yet to us lifeforms which are larger, the size of the ocean up is but a few miles and the width being a few thousand miles?

    I told you it makes me sweat thinking about all this :\

    cheers


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Spear
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 25,271 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    oceansize wrote: »

    Q2) And when it did start to expand, what was the area it expanded into?

    It wasn't an expansion into space, it was an expansion of space.


  • Options
    #3
    oceansize
    Closed Accounts Posts: 257 ✭✭oceansize


    Spear wrote: »
    It wasn't an expansion into space, it was an expansion of space.

    cool, where did it expand into, im sure it can't just expand into an area that isn't there?


  • Options
    #4
    Spear
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 25,271 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    oceansize wrote: »
    cool, where did it expand into, im sure it can't just expand into an area that isn't there?

    It didn't expand into anything, it didn't need to.


  • Options
    #5
    oceansize
    Closed Accounts Posts: 257 ✭✭oceansize


    Can you explain that last comment? I'm still confused, it sounds more like a science way of saying "we don't know so shut up" hehe.


  • Options
    #6
    oceansize
    Closed Accounts Posts: 257 ✭✭oceansize


    oh i forgot about this as well, it kind of looks like a fake picture,
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Milky_Way_IR_Spitzer.jpg in the sense that the fact that there are so many billions of stars visible and non visible in the picture, not a single one of them is large from this viewpoint, it's kind of unlikely that the largest visible one is a fraction of a mm in size apart from our own sun.

    it's like the viewpoint is just a camera looking at space from a remote spot, it looks as though if we were orbiting one of the the stars visible in this picture, then we would see at least a few of the other ones on a much larger scale.

    Do we just happen to be unlucky enough to be orbiting the only star that has no remote proximity to any other star?

    Sorry about these questions but these are ones i can't seem to find answers to in books etc, cheers!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Spear
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 25,271 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    oceansize wrote: »
    oh i forgot about this as well, it kind of looks like a fake picture,
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Milky_Way_IR_Spitzer.jpg in the sense that the fact that there are so many billions of stars visible and non visible in the picture, not a single one of them is large from this viewpoint, it's kind of unlikely that the largest visible one is a fraction of a mm in size apart from our own sun.

    it's like the viewpoint is just a camera looking at space from a remote spot, it looks as though if we were orbiting one of the the stars visible in this picture, then we would see at least a few of the other ones on a much larger scale.

    Do we just happen to be unlucky enough to be orbiting the only star that has no remote proximity to any other star?

    Sorry about these questions but these are ones i can't seem to find answers to in books etc, cheers!

    Even the other planets in our solar system appear as just points of light. That image may have been stitched together from multiple images, or had the colours altered from IR into visible, but other than that it's real. Space is essentially homogenous, it looks the same from everwhere, we're not in a privileged viewpoint.


  • Options
    #8
    oceansize
    Closed Accounts Posts: 257 ✭✭oceansize


    Brilliant, thats a great explanation mate thanks. I am very new to this and it's quite unnerving finding all this information in such a short period of time.

    So due to all the evidence we can safely say there's no god figure out there?
    I mean that is purely based on an Earth centered model of the universe?


  • Options
    #9
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    The Big Bang theory has, all energy, matter, light in the universe already existing in a singularity point, then it somehow became unstable and so this infinitely small point expanded into the gargantuan universe that we know today (or know a small portion of) right?

    Even more bizarrely, it's thought that the total Energy of the universe is zero. Given the famous E=MC2 equation, this accounts for the mass of the universe also, meaning that all the stuff we see around us didn't need to come from 'somewhere' it literally is nothing.

    So it wasn't all sitting there 'existing' in a point, nothing was there - and nothing still is here! - luckily for us it's quite a nice nothing that we can live in but still, the sum of everything in the universe is ZERO!


  • Options
    #10
    oceansize
    Closed Accounts Posts: 257 ✭✭oceansize


    pH wrote: »
    Even more bizarrely, it's thought that the total Energy of the universe is zero. Given the famous E=MC2 equation, this accounts for the mass of the universe also, meaning that all the stuff we see around us didn't need to come from 'somewhere' it literally is nothing.

    So it wasn't all sitting there 'existing' in a point, nothing was there - and nothing still is here! - luckily for us it's quite a nice nothing that we can live in but still, the sum of everything in the universe is ZERO!

    Well no, Zero is a number that we humans created. We can rationalize the number because it has to be true right? But in the big picture, we basically know nothing, apart from the fact that there is stuff outside what we know that we can't explain, so what we do is make up things to try to account for it.

    We're not Zero, i am holding a cup in my hand right now as i type, it has a solid state, and it has weight. even though it may be an infintely small weight, it still has weight none the less, so it's value is not Zero.

    So the Zero theory is just jargon for "how the F**K should we scientists know? hehe


  • Options
    #11
    Spear
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 25,271 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    oceansize wrote: »
    Well no, Zero is a number that we humans created. We can rationalize the number because it has to be true right? But in the big picture, we basically know nothing, apart from the fact that there is stuff outside what we know that we can't explain, so what we do is make up things to try to account for it.

    We're not Zero, i am holding a cup in my hand right now as i type, it has a solid state, and it has weight. even though it may be an infintely small weight, it still has weight none the less, so it's value is not Zero.

    So the Zero theory is just jargon for "how the F**K should we scientists know? hehe

    No, it isn't. 1 positron plus 1 electon gives a total mass of 0.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    oceansize wrote: »
    Can you explain that last comment? I'm still confused, it sounds more like a science way of saying "we don't know so shut up" hehe.

    The theory of general relativity is background independent. I.e. You don't need some external background for space to expand, as "expand" simply refers to increasing length scale. If you and I are 3 metres apart and the universe suddenly expanded rapidly, we would still be 3 metres apart. It's just that a metre would be much much larger.
    So due to all the evidence we can safely say there's no god figure out there?
    I mean that is purely based on an Earth centered model of the universe?

    Well we can say there's no need to invoke a god figure to explain it. And cosmological big bang theories don't imply an earth centred model. To say the earth is the centre of the universe is like saying Canada is the centre of all nations.


  • Options
    #13
    Pgibson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 406 ✭✭Pgibson


    Spear wrote: »
    No, it isn't. 1 positron plus 1 electon gives a total mass of 0.

    If the Earth differed in electric charge to the sun by just " 1 in 10 to power of minus 36" then the differencial electrical force between the two bodies would be greater than the force of gravity.

    The solar system would be a VERY different place.

    The whole known universe has a nett electric charge of exactly zero.

    (Don't try to test this by sticking your finger in the light socket though !)

    .


  • Options
    #14
    Pgibson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 406 ✭✭Pgibson


    Pgibson wrote: »
    " 1 in 10 to power of minus 36" .

    To clarify myself: The number above means " By one millionth of one millionth of one millionth of one millionth of one millionth of one millionth".

    That is how much weaker Gravity is to Electromagnetism.

    It is also why the force of a child's magnet can overcome Earth's gravity and cause a nail to jump up off the floor, despite the fact that the force of gravity of the entire mass of the earth is trying to keep the nail on the floor.

    .


  • Options
    #15
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    In terms of the God question, science is in the business of starting from assumptions based on observation. We call this hypothesis. A hypothesis must be testable in order to be scientifically valid. Once rigorously tested, independently confirmed and widely accepted, a hypothesis becomes theory. God, as defined by the abrahamic religions, is not observable or testable. The God concept is not one that is specifically needed by any branch of science. So overall, science does not have the power to categorically disprove God, but nor does it have any business assuming the existence of such a thing.


  • Options
    #16
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    oceansize wrote: »
    Can you explain that last comment? I'm still confused, it sounds more like a science way of saying "we don't know so shut up" hehe.

    Think of a balloon expanding. The surface appears to be expanding and so forth. :p


  • Options
    #17
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    Think of a balloon expanding. The surface appears to be expanding and so forth. :p

    The problem with practical analogies like these is that they have parameters that don't really apply. The balloon is a two dimensional surface expanding into three dimensional space. The universe is a three dimensional thingy that is expanding into not anything as it represents the sum of all that we can observe. It's always possible that the universe has extra spatial dimensions for us to expand into, but I understand those aren't all that trendy in physics these days. I think I did read that the LHC may shed some light on that though.


Advertisement