Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum

Thread: What do you think of this new ''theory'' about the Big Bang?

  1. #1 What do you think of this new ''theory'' about the Big Bang? 
    ...matter and pixie dust
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,158
    Big Bang Was Actually a Phase Change: New Theory | Space.com I have a thread asking about the qualities of time in the physics section, and someone posted that it's reasonable to think that the BB could have been a 'change of state' occurence. I decided to read up on his assertion, and found this link--thought it was very curious. Look forward to if you have read about this, and what are your thoughts to the idea?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    89
    I looked. Let us think about that for a while. (I just got kicked off Science Forum for thinking this, so beware!)

    Given two cubic light-years, one exceeding hot and one exceedingly cold, do they change phase? One is at absolute zero. The other is fusing hydrogen into helium day by day.
    Are they then of different dimensions? Does one of them fade out and leave a hole? No.

    Space is just THERE, without any limitations or qualifications.

    Likewise Time.

    You can read my inexpert treatise on the subject in A Big Critique of the Big Bang Theory -- which is why they excommunicated me from it. (If they haven't removed it.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,619
    You haven't been kicked out (yet) but if you keep posting this inane nonsense it may just be a matter of time.

    PS is this Hill Billy Homes (again) the style and general cluelessness smell familiar (or is it just the BS giving a false positive)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn Jacobs View Post
    (I just got kicked off Science Forum for thinking this, so beware!)
    No you didn't. Why are you hijacking other people's threads instead of discussing your idea in your won thread: http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...al-theory.html
    (I have commented on some of these points there.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn Jacobs View Post
    I looked. Let us think about that for a while. (I just got kicked off Science Forum for thinking this, so beware!)

    Given two cubic light-years, one exceeding hot and one exceedingly cold, do they change phase? One is at absolute zero. The other is fusing hydrogen into helium day by day.
    Are they then of different dimensions? Does one of them fade out and leave a hole? No.

    Space is just THERE, without any limitations or qualifications.

    Likewise Time.

    You can read my inexpert treatise on the subject in A Big Critique of the Big Bang Theory -- which is why they excommunicated me from it. (If they haven't removed it.)
    In your few threads you've been laying pretty heavily on the persecution thing. That's a classic crank fallback. It's also not a position conducive to a productive discussion.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Big Bang Was Actually a Phase Change: New Theory | Space.com I have a thread asking about the qualities of time in the physics section, and someone posted that it's reasonable to think that the BB could have been a 'change of state' occurence. I decided to read up on his assertion, and found this link--thought it was very curious. Look forward to if you have read about this, and what are your thoughts to the idea?
    Yes, this is pretty much exactly how I personally understand the Big Bang event - as a phase change of an underlying system of fundamental degrees of freedom, with space-time being an emergent property of said quantum system. Whether or not this will eventually pan out remains to be seen, but I think it definitely warrants further research. See also my thread on quantum gravity.
    wegs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I wish physicist would stop using the word "theory" like they are drinking at a bar trying to get a drunk hot chick/hunk interested in them instead of using it in accordance with the rest of the scientific community.
    bgi likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Big Bang Was Actually a Phase Change: New Theory | Space.com I have a thread asking about the qualities of time in the physics section, and someone posted that it's reasonable to think that the BB could have been a 'change of state' occurence. I decided to read up on his assertion, and found this link--thought it was very curious. Look forward to if you have read about this, and what are your thoughts to the idea?

    At first glance, it seems a mind-boggling hypothesis (I would not go as far as calling it a new theory in the scientific sense of the word).
    However, whether or not an idea is absurd, is not a valid guide in science and I will await the results of their observations.
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; December 15th, 2013 at 06:54 AM. Reason: Grammatical error.
    wegs and bgi like this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    OK, not a theory but just my thoughts. I don't care to argue about this topic and it doesn't have much value to me.

    I don't care specifically for Big Bang, right or wrong.

    All I know is following.

    Think of a laser beam, why does it have high rate of net output compared to total input? - directed in one direction, correct, but the main reason is because the e-m waves are synchronized in phase in the tube.

    Our Sun puts out so much total energy but relatively very little net output, meaning that the e-m waves have varying wavelngths and most of them are not synchronized in phase, cancelling the total energy. If a larger portion of the solar output had been more synchronized in phase, Earth may have been like Venus, e.g.

    Not in terms of Vacuum Energy, but the total absorbed energy within vacuum is virtually infinite. If there is a perturbation that brings many of those bundles to a synchronized phase, then a Big Bang is possible. In other words, Big Bang didn't have to come from zero point, ..... If anyone asks me further question, I am not interested to answer, this was my thought and that's it.

    One more thing, scientists are so preoccupied by the conservation of total mass-energy, it is my opinion that the "total" depends on you we set the parameter. How about including the total absorbed energy in vacuum?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    89
    (Moderator! Don't throw me out. I was deliberately invited to comment on this.)

    - - - - - - - -

    Let us imagine a star that sends out synchronized energy.

    Whoops! We can't imagine it.

    We can get a laser pointer for three dollars, but the business end of it is tiny.

    A star could not manage this, because, saying that it sent out synchronized light exactly "Galactic North," as in Star Treck, what would it send out a degree to the north, or a degree upwards, for example?

    Nothing? Scrambled light?

    All those hydrogen atoms being fused into helium would have to be marching together, and they are quantum independent, not under Drill Sergeants.

    If a star could (and did) send out synchronized light, the beam could cut solid stone planets neatly in half. Only, that's like saying "if a wood chuck could chuck wood . . ."

    The output energy is there, even if the electromagnetic waves do not act like lasers.

    Lasers put all the energy in one focused spot. But it isn't more energy.

    White Light warms oceans and continents. Such power focused as a laser could burn holes thru planets.
    Last edited by Glenn Jacobs; December 26th, 2013 at 12:50 PM. Reason: Clarifying which sort of light does what.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Isn't a star like emitting laser beams of every conceivable colour all at the same time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    ...matter and pixie dust
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Big Bang Was Actually a Phase Change: New Theory | Space.com I have a thread asking about the qualities of time in the physics section, and someone posted that it's reasonable to think that the BB could have been a 'change of state' occurence. I decided to read up on his assertion, and found this link--thought it was very curious. Look forward to if you have read about this, and what are your thoughts to the idea?
    Yes, this is pretty much exactly how I personally understand the Big Bang event - as a phase change of an underlying system of fundamental degrees of freedom, with space-time being an emergent property of said quantum system. Whether or not this will eventually pan out remains to be seen, but I think it definitely warrants further research. See also my thread on quantum gravity.
    Very interesting, I appreciate your thoughts to this--I will look for your thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I wish physicist would stop using the word "theory" like they are drinking at a bar trying to get a drunk hot chick/hunk interested in them instead of using it in accordance with the rest of the scientific community.
    Lol, not sure I follow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    ...matter and pixie dust
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Big Bang Was Actually a Phase Change: New Theory | Space.com I have a thread asking about the qualities of time in the physics section, and someone posted that it's reasonable to think that the BB could have been a 'change of state' occurence. I decided to read up on his assertion, and found this link--thought it was very curious. Look forward to if you have read about this, and what are your thoughts to the idea?
    Yes, this is pretty much exactly how I personally understand the Big Bang event - as a phase change of an underlying system of fundamental degrees of freedom, with space-time being an emergent property of said quantum system. Whether or not this will eventually pan out remains to be seen, but I think it definitely warrants further research. See also my thread on quantum gravity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I wish physicist would stop using the word "theory" like they are drinking at a bar trying to get a drunk hot chick/hunk interested in them instead of using it in accordance with the rest of the scientific community.
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn Jacobs View Post
    I looked. Let us think about that for a while. (I just got kicked off Science Forum for thinking this, so beware!)Given two cubic light-years, one exceeding hot and one exceedingly cold, do they change phase? One is at absolute zero. The other is fusing hydrogen into helium day by day.Are they then of different dimensions? Does one of them fade out and leave a hole? No. Space is just THERE, without any limitations or qualifications. Likewise Time.You can read my inexpert treatise on the subject in A Big Critique of the Big Bang Theory -- which is why they excommunicated me from it. (If they haven't removed it.)
    A bit dramatic, no? So, where do you have this posted? On another forum?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    ...matter and pixie dust
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,158
    ^^ That comment is meant for Glenn Jacobs, but I have trouble isolating quotes when using my phone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    89
    This is Glenn, the New Guy. I do not know how to work a Forum, and it seems like I have considerable traffic here. Also, it seems like I'm in the wrong place.

    I posted into someone else's thread and into a very stale thread and was scolded. I have no idea where that post went. I don't even know where I am now, nor what I am supposed to be doing here. The Administrator assigned me a thread called SPLIT -- Glenn Jacobs, and you might want to look over there.

    The thought of a star emitting lasers of every conceivable color is like thinking about an Army drill team marching together in all directions to all possible cadences at once.

    You describe White Light, not lasers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    If Big Bang sells, then Big bang is, correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    If Big Bang sells, then Big bang is, correct?
    Learn what the Big Bang is before trolling.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Did they find the center of the Universe? Any radiation from the time of big bang, meanign farthest back in time, whichever direction Hubble looks, should see the center of then Universe, correct? Since, back in time = everything at the center = any direction Hubble focuses on should be the center of the origin??? Sounds strange to you, right? Mobius topology? . current big bang is too linear
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    Did they find the center of the Universe?
    The "center" is everywhere.

    Any radiation from the time of big bang, meanign farthest back in time, whichever direction Hubble looks, should see the center of then Universe, correct?
    Yes, because the "center" is everywhere. It is where you are as well as the most distant galaxies.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Big Questions About the Big Bang Theory
    By suziwong in forum Links
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 30th, 2013, 01:41 PM
  2. My Big Bang Theory
    By Travis Meyers in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2013, 12:49 PM
  3. Infinite Universe theory VS Big Bang theory
    By nsbm ranger in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: January 18th, 2013, 07:52 AM
  4. Infinite Universe theory VS Big Bang theory
    By nsbm ranger in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 15th, 2013, 07:15 AM
  5. Tyler Winkler's Expanding Universe Theory / Big Bang Theory
    By Tyler Winkler in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2012, 03:38 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •