Pow! Zap! (Big) Bang?! (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 17:31 (5151 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Balance,
> So we suspend the rules and say that it could happen even though it violates everything we know to be true, but ok, we will just skip that bit and come back to it later.
> -No no no... okay, you've probably heard that "The laws of physics break down near black holes," on any physics show. The exact reason why is because when you get down to the quantum level existence becomes probabilities; and you can't derive any of our basic physical laws (Force, energy, acceleration, heat, etc...) --none of it--at the point of the singularity. In the moment literally just before the big bang there simply were no physical laws. Everything that any physicist surmises about this point is metaphysics. And in fact, some physical laws don't exist for some time after the expansion began. The same thing for evolution; it does nothing at all about explaining origins, only about what has happened since life created. Physics hits an identical barrier here. This is why some physicists prefer the "outdated" view of a purely eternal universe. Any mention you ever see of a "singularity" in physics literally means "anomalies where our physical models make little sense." That's the reason that we need to be directing our societies towards exploration, so we can get a crack at these deep questions. Otherwise we're just sitting here and twiddling our thumbs. -> A straight line in every possible direction(spherical). We would be talking about a lot of particles, not one. I should have clarified in this post, but I did clarify it later. Apologies.
> -But you missed the point that there was still no vacuum. The universe didn't expand into something else under BBT models, nothing existed at all. (Except the singularity.) Vacuum didn't exist until the blobs of matter had enough space to get away from each other. In terms of the shape, there are literally billions of discrete possibilities. We know that ours was relatively spherical. -> If they were in a plasma state, they would no longer be H and He, they would be ionized unbound atoms and electrons. At least according to the definition of plasma. However, assuming they did keep their structure:
> 
You... seem to be reasoning that H and He are not H and He when in plasma states? Before we continue down this line, we need to be on the same page. Chemical properties are different in plasma but they are clearly still H and He even if they are in a heavily charged state--it only means that e- flow freely throughout the plasma mixture. H by itself also couldn't exist until the universe had cooled enough to allow for it. By the time this happened, the varying areas of hot and cold had already formed the basic structure of the universe. (Go to the book "Programming the Universe.") 
> 
> .... Only the lightest elements are built up in the earlyuniverse. 
> -I had always read that most of the matter was made from the fusion in stars. (that link is awesome, btw) All the BBT models I've seen assert that only H existed for... (fuzzy) 300k years until stars formed and began fusing them into heavier elements. -> Concerning Anti-matter
> 
> Antiparticles are also produced in any environment with a sufficiently high temperature (mean particle energy greater than the pair production threshold). During the period of baryogenesis, when the universe was extremely hot and dense, matter and antimatter were continually produced and annihilated. The presence of remaining matter, and absence of detectable remaining antimatter,[11] also called baryon asymmetry, is attributed to violation of the CP-symmetry relating matter and antimatter. The exact mechanism of this violation during baryogenesis remains a mystery.
> 
> There is not enough anti-matter in the universe. A Big Bang would produce
> equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but only small amounts of antimatter
> exists. (Asimov's New Guide to Science, p.343).
> -You have found one of "the greatest unsolved problems in physics" here. After digging into it, we just don't have an explanation for it for now. The hard part about reasoning at the bleeding edge (as we are doing) as that invariably we will have to resort to some kind of metaphysics to fill the gaps without access to a decent physical model. String Theory purports to solve this and many other problems, but as you'll find I'm not a fan of it. So here, you have stated a known problem of cosmology that must be solved; pointing out the obvious isn't necessarily valid criticism. Unless you're prepared to fight with me to understand Baryonic physics--which I intend to do but realize it will take many years.
> 
> >The size if the universe is infinite. Aside from that, if, using your own scenario--the universe shot out as a straight line--there would never be a center.
> 
> Data from the CRMB would disagree with the infinite size of the Universe. It's big, but not infinite. BBT does not speculate about whats on the other side of the CRMB.-We know the rate of expansion in our universe is 3x the speed of light, out near the edge. Therefore, the universe is infinite in size. The WMAP data confirmed the speed of expansion.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"