Jump to content

Welcome to Grasscity Forums - Register now for FREE
Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute.
Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Create an Account

Big bang a bust?


  • Please log in to reply
 

#1
SouthrnSmoke

SouthrnSmoke

    Capitalist Pig

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,732 posts
Big Bang theory a bust: Scientist claims there's something out there | Space, Military and Medicine | News.com.au



Anyone hear anything else about this?

#2
g0pher

g0pher

    Durban Poison

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,331 posts
I dunno, Interesting though, i dont know much about cosmology yet to make any contributions.
Would love to see some debates on this but the article doesnt have a comments field

#3
yurigadaisukida

yurigadaisukida

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 10,731 posts
"Prof Penrose says that his research shows that all matter in the universe will eventually be consumed by black holes, leaving only energy behind which will in turn trigger the next Big Bang."

This is what i been thinking for a while. All things fall into the black wholes.and.then.dark energy KS creates.

I've always thought the universe probly existed in cycles.

#4
SouthrnSmoke

SouthrnSmoke

    Capitalist Pig

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,732 posts

"Prof Penrose says that his research shows that all matter in the universe will eventually be consumed by black holes, leaving only energy behind which will in turn trigger the next Big Bang."

This is what i been thinking for a while. All things fall into the black wholes.and.then.dark energy KS creates.

I've always thought the universe probly existed in cycles.



If so .....


What started the first cycle?


Hawking's opinion at one point ( not sure if he has retracted it) is that there are multiple universes in which some had black holes, and some didn't. On a long enough time scale only the universes which didn't would exist, and the ones that had black holes would be consumed.

Perhaps there's something behind that related to what Penrose is saying here.

#5
SouthrnSmoke

SouthrnSmoke

    Capitalist Pig

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,732 posts

I dunno, Interesting though, i dont know much about cosmology yet to make any contributions.
Would love to see some debates on this but the article doesnt have a comments field



Yeah im having a hard time finding other material :(

#6
DaWood

DaWood

    a Zip and a Double Cup

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 868 posts
The big bang is a cycle, it doesnt mean that its fake. We are just getting more evidence to support different theories.

#7
SouthrnSmoke

SouthrnSmoke

    Capitalist Pig

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,732 posts

The big bang is a cycle, it doesnt mean that its fake. We are just getting more evidence to support different theories.




Nobody is saying big bang is fake.


But perhaps it wasn't the beginning of existence :)

#8
Mantikore

Mantikore

    I'm a rambird, big whoop.

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 5,996 posts
One of my random theories is looking at black holes more like balloons. You can only shove in so much shit til it explodes. Smaller ones can't hold as much shit and explode, throwing their matter/antimatter/dark matter and all the stuff they sucked in during their life through space. Larger ones can hold more and even suck in remnants of dead black holes, increasing their carrying capacity. Billions upon billions of years later, times 3, everything ends up in one giant black "balloon" that creates the biggest bang when it can't hold its shit together any longer. Rinse and repeat.

As for asking what started the beginning, if it runs in cycles, there may not be an actual beginning. Energy and matter cannot be destroyed, only change forms. It all could of been there, always, in one form or cycle. Meaning if you hypothetically could time travel and wanted to see the beginning, you would never find it. You'll only ever see the beginning and end of cycles and endlessly travel backwards.
  • Stewba likes this

#9
SouthrnSmoke

SouthrnSmoke

    Capitalist Pig

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,732 posts
Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang - physicsworld.com


[1011.3706] Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity

#10
yurigadaisukida

yurigadaisukida

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 10,731 posts

One of my random theories is looking at black holes more like balloons. You can only shove in so much shit til it explodes. Smaller ones can't hold as much shit and explode, throwing their matter/antimatter/dark matter and all the stuff they sucked in during their life through space. Larger ones can hold more and even suck in remnants of dead black holes, increasing their carrying capacity. Billions upon billions of years later, times 3, everything ends up in one giant black "balloon" that creates the biggest bang when it can't hold its shit together any longer. Rinse and repeat.

As for asking what started the beginning, if it runs in cycles, there may not be an actual beginning. Energy and matter cannot be destroyed, only change forms. It all could of been there, always, in one form or cycle. Meaning if you hypothetically could time travel and wanted to see the beginning, you would never find it. You'll only ever see the beginning and end of cycles and endlessly travel backwards.


My theory is that they consume "forever" but require constant material input to maintain the gravity. Once a black hole stops eating it quickly evaporates into pure energy

#11
HookedonPhonics

HookedonPhonics

    On the road

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 585 posts
There has always been an avoidance to accepting the possibility of an Ad infinitum universe, whereby there was no genesis nor will the be a culmination. Infinite principles saturate the arena of mathematics, defining constants and axioms to many areas of the subject. Mathematics appears to be the language of the cosmos, why should this principle not be equally equivalent.

#12
Virtue 7

Virtue 7

    SatChitAnanda

  • Gold Member
  • 12,410 posts


#13
SouthrnSmoke

SouthrnSmoke

    Capitalist Pig

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,732 posts

There has always been an avoidance to accepting the possibility of an Ad infinitum universe, whereby there was no genesis nor will the be a culmination. Infinite principles saturate the arena of mathematics, defining constants and axioms to many areas of the subject. Mathematics appears to be the language of the cosmos, why should this principle not be equally equivalent.




Mathematics is a human construct created by the human mind as a way to organize human observations. Ascribing it the significance of being " the language of the cosmos" is a bit arrogant and foolish. It seems plausible that human beings can only reach a finite level of objectivity, which ends with our ability to percieve new concepts or if we run out of things we can percieve. I would hope we never hit such a brick wall, but as they say, anything is possible.

#14
Pale Blue Dot

Pale Blue Dot

    hail satan

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,065 posts

My theory is that they consume "forever" but require constant material input to maintain the gravity. Once a black hole stops eating it quickly evaporates into pure energy

What? There's plenty of evidence to show that black holes continue to exist when not feeding. There was an article a few weeks ago explaining that some astrophysicists had observed, vividly, an inactive black hole circling too close to a star, then ripping the star apart and begin feeding. They are nearly invisible when inactive, but they don't disappear.

Here:
Star eaten by a black hole: still blasting away | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
Astronomers see ANOTHER star ripped apart by a black hole! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
  • g0pher likes this

#15
Deriv

Deriv

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 718 posts
Yea mathematics isn't the end all, but I do agree it is the language of the cosmos.

I don't mean that like the universe created math but it is definitely a "language" that all intelligent beings must have mastered somewhere along the way.

That being said I don't think mathematics can explain everything in the universe. It probably can but it may take some genius to create a new type of math.

I mean when Newton, Leibniz, etc... all created calculus around the same time they should have taken a step back and realized that they now needed to explain the force that caused them all to have epiphanies at nearly the same time. ;)


The problem is that people always try to get rid of a whole theory when something doesn't fit, it just so happens that more often than not there is more than meets the eye.

Parts of religious texts are sometimes eerily accurate about things within this life, but there is also stuff not so... accurate. The whole god complex strikes me as one of the inaccurate things, if prophets really gained this knowledge from a higher power, I would be willing to bet it was probably alien beings/spirits.

If I was an intelligent being a part of a civilization a couple hundred thousand years older than another it wouldn't be very hard to make them think of you as a god. Hell even 500 years ahead would be pretty easy, and wouldn't that be awesome to have A WHOLE INTELLIGENT CIVILIZATION pray to you like their lord.

God is a force, not an omnipotent, omniscient being that looks EXACTLY like a Homo Sapien. Thats just the egocentric mind at work... :rolleyes:

The theory of relativity can explain a lot of things but particle mass doesn't approach infinity as it reaches the speed of light. We have already got particles to 99% the speed of light and I remember people were against colliders because they would create black holes. :hello:

But that doesn't mean we have to reject the theory we just have to realize that it may only be a part instead of a whole.

Basically explaining the universe is like putting together a big ass jigsaw puzzle. Not one of those 1,000 piece ones but a puzzle with BILLIONS of pieces.

All Einstein did was finish one of the corners when everyone thought he finished the puzzle. He also may have forced a few pieces to fit with the rest of his "finished" corner.



As for the theory we are actually talking about... (sorry for getting sidetracked, and I don't even have any weed:() We already know that quasars around supermassive black holes spew out energy in vertical beams. I view this as a galaxy's way of recycling, because new stars are created out of these quasar beams.


BUT MAYBE (probably not), black holes pull in light reflecting matter and put out dark matter. So at the end it is total darkness with shadow demon space eels slithering through the universe eatin up the straggler aliens who refuse to accept their demise. Then when the last star puffs out it sparks the dark matter, igniting it like a puddle of gasoline and BAM, THE BIG BANG:D
  • g0pher likes this

#16
Thunderstruck

Thunderstruck

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,440 posts

Mathematics is a human construct created by the human mind as a way to organize human observations. Ascribing it the significance of being " the language of the cosmos" is a bit arrogant and foolish. It seems plausible that human beings can only reach a finite level of objectivity, which ends with our ability to percieve new concepts or if we run out of things we can percieve. I would hope we never hit such a brick wall, but as they say, anything is possible.


Sure and it's possible that a black hole could open up inside the earth and we are all already dead and just don't know it yet. Any possibility has some chance of happening but that doesn't mean that the odds of it are within the life of the universe.

The fact that this "human construct" of mathematics can describe A) things we haven't yet seen but then we find them because the math tells us how and where to look and B) the quantum world, which is so wholly counter to everything we are use to experiencing. The fact that we were able to go from making notches on sticks to that should convince you that there is a power in it and there has yet to be ANY evidence that there is a limit to what it can tell us.

Well ok, it can't yet describe your soul but that's not because it can't but because you can't yet measure what the soul is. If you can poke it then math can describe it and that's pretty fucking amazing. Math isn't limited because of humans, when we seem to reach an end another human is born and comes up with a completely new way of thinking about the problem. So sure, when humans stop being born or coming up with new ideas then there's a chance we will reach this brick wall your talking about.

Sorry if I come off a bit harsh but your effectively talking about a limit to knowledge and of all idea's I have ever heard that is the one most based in ignoring all evidence. That idea is usually followed by some sort of "we are coming close to knowing all there is to know" comment.


As for the OP's post. Sounds kinda crazy from what little I know about the WMAP data but who knows, he could be proven right but I'm on the other side so far. nice find though :smoke:

#17
HookedonPhonics

HookedonPhonics

    On the road

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 585 posts

Mathematics is a human construct created by the human mind as a way to organize human observations. Ascribing it the significance of being " the language of the cosmos" is a bit arrogant and foolish. It seems plausible that human beings can only reach a finite level of objectivity, which ends with our ability to percieve new concepts or if we run out of things we can percieve. I would hope we never hit such a brick wall, but as they say, anything is possible.


I don't see why it would be arrogant or foolish, we didn't invent mathematics; we discovered it by creating the language in which to describe it. This is known as mathematical realism - Other intelligent beings may also discover the logic of mathematics, but transcribe it under a different notation. I wouldn't call Kurt Godel a fool.
I also fail to understand why this would be a finite level of our objectivity, because we can manipulate infinity in a number of ways; there are countable and uncountable infinities and we use them daily to describe the nature of the universe.

#18
Stewba

Stewba

    I'm using the internet

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,354 posts

I don't see why it would be arrogant or foolish, we didn't invent mathematics; we discovered it by creating the language in which to describe it. This is known as mathematical realism - Other intelligent beings may also discover the logic of mathematics, but transcribe it under a different notation. I wouldn't call Kurt Godel a fool.
I also fail to understand why this would be a finite level of our objectivity, because we can manipulate infinity in a number of ways; there are countable and uncountable infinities and we use them daily to describe the nature of the universe.

I think what he meant by proposing humans might have a "finite level of objectivity" is that humans may not be fully capable of completely understanding the workings of the universe. Like, we literally can't know some stuff. It might be true. I don't think being able to conceptualize infinity is anywhere close to being able to completely understand the laws of how matter/energy behave. Maybe there are things involved that we just can't perceive, not even when aided by technology.

I agree with you about other species discovering the logic of math, but calling math "the language of the cosmos." is definitely arrogant IMO. Since when did the cosmos come showing itself to us in the form of equations? It's been us humans using equations to describe it, it doesn't communicate lol. I don't think it's ever going to tell us about itself. If I was going to consider anything to be the language of the universe, I'd say it's whatever makes up atoms (or whatever makes up what makes up atoms, and so on lol, that's assuming there's an end though, meh) all these little symbols come together to form the expression of the universe's state at any given instant.

#19
SouthrnSmoke

SouthrnSmoke

    Capitalist Pig

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,732 posts

I don't see why it would be arrogant or foolish, we didn't invent mathematics; we discovered it by creating the language in which to describe it. This is known as mathematical realism - Other intelligent beings may also discover the logic of mathematics, but transcribe it under a different notation. I wouldn't call Kurt Godel a fool.
I also fail to understand why this would be a finite level of our objectivity, because we can manipulate infinity in a number of ways; there are countable and uncountable infinities and we use them daily to describe the nature of the universe.



Mathematics wasn't discovered, it was created. It was completely designed and conceptualized by human beings as a way to organize observable patterns, so as to make use of them. If not as if somebody went sailing and discovered mathematics. We discovered that there are observable patterns, and that if you organize them properly, you can make use of them.


Other beings could also have a similar system of quantitative analysis, but us having already done so, doesn't mean they necessarily do, or have to. Quantitative properties might be a moot point to a different form of intelligence.


I say we have a finite level of objectivity, because we cannot analyze observations from outside our own perspective as of yet. Objectivity implies something is true outside of a given perspective. Seeing as how everything we observe, we do so from our perspective, there is only a certain level of objectivity we can reach. To break that boundary we would need to be provided information from a separate perspective from our own. Another intelligence perhaps.

#20
SouthrnSmoke

SouthrnSmoke

    Capitalist Pig

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,732 posts

Sure and it's possible that a black hole could open up inside the earth and we are all already dead and just don't know it yet. Any possibility has some chance of happening but that doesn't mean that the odds of it are within the life of the universe.

The fact that this "human construct" of mathematics can describe A) things we haven't yet seen but then we find them because the math tells us how and where to look and B) the quantum world, which is so wholly counter to everything we are use to experiencing. The fact that we were able to go from making notches on sticks to that should convince you that there is a power in it and there has yet to be ANY evidence that there is a limit to what it can tell us.


Sorry if I come off a bit harsh but your effectively talking about a limit to knowledge and of all idea's I have ever heard that is the one most based in ignoring all evidence. That idea is usually followed by some sort of "we are coming close to knowing all there is to know" comment.


:smoke:



I'm not saying mathematics isn't useful, I'm saying its a human concept.


I'm not saying we are coming close, or will come close to knowing all there is to know. I'm saying its possible there is a limit to our minds capability to conceptualize how the universe works. Hawking believed its possible our minds aren't equipped to fully describe the way the universe works it totality. Its possible our minds simply aren't sophisticated enough machines.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users