Ask a physicist anything. (2)

[Taure]

I have a question about the big bang.

I understand red shift, CMBR, etc.

My question is about the conclusion we draw from this. Clearly there was a big bang which was the cause of everything we see. But what evidence suggests that the big bang caused the entire universe? Could it not be entirely possible that the big bang was an event situated within the universe? That it is merely our region of the universe (and by region I mean ridiculously huge area with hundreds of billions of galaxies) which experienced a big bang, and beyond it there is more universe which is different?

 

[dewaddict84]

But what evidence suggests that the big bang caused the entire universe?

There are all sorts of theories when it comes to the big bang. I don't believe that the singularity existing within some sort of functioning universe has been ruled out.

But from the age of the universe we know that the event horizon (the initial shockwave) of the big bang is way out there. It has passed over out location and kept going. We exist in the fallout of the big-bang. Even if there was something like a galaxy/planet/desk around the singularity when it exploded, it was wiped out or at least re-arranged into oblivion.

There is also an idea out there that the singularity was so massive that it sucked in ALL matter and energy in existence. With no state to change from one moment to the next, time literally stopped. But that's kinda "out there".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have a question about the big bang.

I understand red shift, CMBR, etc.

My question is about the conclusion we draw from this. Clearly there was a big bang which was the cause of everything we see.

Yes and no. Yes, inasmuch as the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years from a singularity to its current size, and this ongoing expansion is called the Big Bang. No, inasmuch as it was The Cause™ of everything we see: it's just one very large, very important process that affects everything we see. It didn't necessarily cause it to exist in the first place.

But what evidence suggests that the big bang caused the entire universe? Could it not be entirely possible that the big bang was an event situated within the universe? That it is merely our region of the universe (and by region I mean ridiculously huge area with hundreds of billions of galaxies) which experienced a big bang, and beyond it there is more universe which is different?

It's entirely possible, though Occam's Razor suggests otherwise. The observable universe is consistent with the rough idea of an expanding sphere of space, not situated 'in' any place (though the idea of the universe existing alone in non-space hurts my head).

Basically, we no nothing about what happened over 13.5 billion years ago, since we can't accurately model how matter behaved back then. Bear that in mind whenever you hear people talking about the Big Bang causing the universe to exist . It's a popular misconception, even among scientists (who are, of course, the superior race of humans).

 

[Doveaman]

(though the idea of the universe existing alone in non-space hurts my head).

Maybe I can help:

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. - Rom 8:22

This universe exists within God's womb.

God is pregnant with the universe.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Maybe I can help:

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. - Rom 8:22

This universe exists within God's womb.

God is pregnant with the universe.

*blinks*

 

[Maxwell511]

It's entirely possible, though Occam's Razor suggests otherwise.

Don't do that. You are a scientist, never appeal to Occam's razor as an agrument. Never.

You are not Sherlock "[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ing" Holmes. You are a scientist.

 

[dewaddict84]

I really don't see the problem with Occam's razor. It's an argument against the superfluous.

 

[TerranceL]

Maybe I can help:

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. - Rom 8:22

This universe exists within God's womb.

God is pregnant with the universe.

So your god is a woman?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Don't do that. You are a scientist, never appeal to Occam's razor as an agrument. Never.

You are not Sherlock "[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ing" Holmes. You are a scientist.

I really don't see the problem with Occam's razor. It's an argument against the superfluous.

I agree. What's wrong with Occam's Razor? True, it's just a precautionary principle against positing unnecessary entities, but it does serve to let us dismiss overly complex ideas in favour of simpler ones.

 

[Doveaman]

So your god is a woman?

Nope, He is a pregnant self-reproducing Male:

"With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." - Matt 19:26

 

[pgp_protector]

Nope, He is a pregnant self-reproducing Male:

"With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." - Matt 19:26

Self Reproducing ?
So there's more than On God now?
Or did he not reproduce perfectly ?

 

[Doveaman]

Self Reproducing ?
So there's more than On God now?
Or did he not reproduce perfectly ?

"I said, 'You are "gods "; you are all sons of the Most High.'" - Psa 82:6

 

[SithDoughnut]

I was watching a program on TV about the solar system, which made me think of this question.

Why will the Sun expand into a red giant? If it is burning up all it's fuel, why will it expand first (an action that surely requires even more energy) rather than stay the same or shrink?

 

[pgp_protector]

I was watching a program on TV about the solar system, which made me think of this question.

Why will the Sun expand into a red giant? If it is burning up all it's fuel, why will it expand first (an action that surely requires even more energy) rather than stay the same or shrink?

My Understanding is that while the Size will increase the Mass will Decrease.
(Think of a Marshmallow expanding becoming larger but less dense in a microwave)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nope, He is a pregnant self-reproducing Male:

"With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." - Matt 19:26

I believe the correct term is 'parthenogenesis'. God is a lizard!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I was watching a program on TV about the solar system, which made me think of this question.

Why will the Sun expand into a red giant? If it is burning up all it's fuel, why will it expand first (an action that surely requires even more energy) rather than stay the same or shrink?

Because it's fuel is whatever atoms are fusing. As it dies, its fuel is less hydrogen and more heavy elements. These give off a lot more energy when they fuse, and, towards the end of its life, they are more abundant. So it has a sudden surge of energy which greatly heats it up.

The size of a star is determined by a balance of inward pressure (from gravity) and outward pressure (from thermonuclear fusion; hot things expand). In normal stars, they balance out. As a star dies, its internal pressure skyrockets, causing it to explode (albeit very gradually over millions of years).

In some stars, only the less dense outer layers explode out, leaving the denser, more gravitationally-contained, core. This results in white dwarfs and the like:

 

[Chesterton]

.

 

[Chesterton]

,

 

[Chesterton]

'

 

[Chesterton]

Can I ask the 1,000th question?