Started By
Message
re: Do you accept the notion of the Big Bang as the origin of our universe?
Posted on 1/6/18 at 10:26 pm to DavidTheGnome
Posted on 1/6/18 at 10:26 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
About 300,000 years after the big bang, the universe was like a smoke-filled chamber from which light could not escape. By the time the universe was a billion years old, the smoke—actually a gas of light-trapping hydrogen—had cleared almost entirely, allowing stars and galaxies to become visible.
That article is from 2010. This illustrates the speed with which knowledge is being gained about the Universe. The most distant galaxy spotted by Hubble last year is seen only 400 million years after the BB. Amazing times.
This post was edited on 1/6/18 at 10:29 pm
1
Posted on 1/6/18 at 10:32 pm to Kentucker
I dont think it’s saying Hubble has actually seen them which I’m fairly certain it hasn’t, but rather that’s when the universe has become see-through making it possible to see what’s out there. Watch the Cosmic Dawn documentary I linked to above it’s about this very early stage of the universe, good stuff.
But yeah the speed at which our understanding of this stuff moves the info is probably dated. Just think 100 years ago we didn’t even realize there was a rest of the universe!
But yeah the speed at which our understanding of this stuff moves the info is probably dated. Just think 100 years ago we didn’t even realize there was a rest of the universe!
Posted on 1/6/18 at 10:39 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
I dont think it’s saying Hubble has actually seen them which I’m fairly certain it hasn’t, but rather that’s when the universe has become see-through making it possible to see what’s out there.
Um, yeah, Hubble recorded light from GN-z11 and its spectrum was measured, giving an extremely reliable estimate of its distance. Obviously things had cleared up by then.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 10:51 pm to Kentucker
Right but what I’m saying is that Hubble may have been able to see it because the universe became clear but that doesn’t mean GN-z11 was one of the first stars. It is probably by that point one of the second generation (first gen burned huge, bright, and fast) Those very first ones are I’m sure all too far into the infrared to currently be viewed.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 10:59 pm to DavidTheGnome
GN-z11 is actually a galaxy and the Astronomy article to which I linked earlier in the thread says
I have watched the video you linked to in the past and I remember that even it said that the Hubble had looked back to a galaxy existing some 500 million years after the BB.
quote:
The remote galaxy GN-z11, shown in the inset, existed only 400 million years after the Big Bang when the universe was only 3 percent of its current age. It belongs to the first generation of galaxies in the universe, and its discovery provides new insights into the early universe. This is the first time that the distance of an object so far away has been measured from its spectrum, which makes the measurement extremely reliable.
I have watched the video you linked to in the past and I remember that even it said that the Hubble had looked back to a galaxy existing some 500 million years after the BB.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 11:03 pm to Kentucker
I think there were first gen stars before first gen galaxies. I’m really not sure of the formational dynamics between the two worked though.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 11:06 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Just think 100 years ago we didn’t even realize there was a rest of the universe!
And think of the incredible discoveries that will come in the next 5 years. With JWST launching this year, we may be able to even discover life on exoplanets by analyzing their atmospheres. I personally predict that this discovery will come by 2024 but, depending upon JWST's capabilities it could be before 2020.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 11:11 pm to Kentucker
Assuming it doesn’t blow up on the launch pad... !
Would be one of the worst days in modern scientific history if that happened.
Would be one of the worst days in modern scientific history if that happened.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 11:11 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
I think there were first gen stars before first gen galaxies. I’m really not sure of the formational dynamics between the two worked though.
That would be strange but it's the Universe so I'll not count anything out.
Speaking of anomalies, have you ever wondered why there's no discussion of black holes when considering the first time periods after the BB? I mean, the density of the early Universe was far, far greater than needed for the formation of black holes.
I think maybe gravity is even more strange than we think. We don't understand it well at all and there may be strangeness that we haven't even considered.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 11:14 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Assuming it doesn’t blow up on the launch pad... !
Ack! Don't even think that. I would probably just quit studying physics at all and get a hobby that doesn't require thinking.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 11:17 pm to Kentucker
quote:
That would be strange
Nah think about it. At first everything was distributed almost evenly, but the irregularities caused gravity to do its thing and coalesce the gas into very large stars (there was a lot to feed from). Those stars and cloud forming regions surrounding them would have distribution irregularities and the same gravitational processes occur forming galaxies. Maybe not like I said I don’t know the mechanics just guessing.
This post was edited on 1/6/18 at 11:22 pm
Posted on 1/6/18 at 11:31 pm to Gatorbait2008
quote:
Obviously the Universe is expanding, but I simply can't find the answer to the obvious. What created that beginning?
The idea of creation might not be best for considering the origin of the Universe. Continuation might be better.
With math and telescopes we have looked back in time far enough to almost conclusively say that there was a "Big Bang," but we might have to change the moniker once we have the ability to "see" beyond it.
It's my opinion that we will discover that the point of the BB is merely a pass-through portal from the "other side" of the BB. If you subscribe to String Theory, you'll know that it's possible that it was a "soup" (sorry I'm using so many quotes but there simply aren't adequate terms for what I'm trying to describe) of strings that came through the portal and formed the Universe.
So, in that context the Universe wasn't created. It was merely continued from beyond the BB.
quote:
Just won't identify it because I think its far to much for the human mind to even grasp.
I disagree. I think intelligence is directly related to interest and imagination. It's imagination that distinguishes us from other intelligences on earth.
quote:
If an intelligent being created this Universe, it is not anything like a species only a few thousand years old...
Of course, the vexing problem with that thought is, "What created the Creator."
quote:
...that dies quickly and uses 12 percent of its brain power.
Sorry, it's a myth that people only use a small percentage of their brain. We use 100% of our brain at all times. What most people don't understand is just how powerful our brains are.
This post was edited on 1/6/18 at 11:52 pm
Posted on 1/6/18 at 11:38 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Nah think about it. At first everything was distributed almost evenly, but the irregularities caused gravity to do its thing and coalesce the gas into very large stars (there was a lot to feed from). Those stars and cloud forming regions surrounding them would have distribution irregularities and the same gravitational processes occur forming galaxies. Maybe not like I said I don’t know the mechanics just guessing.
However, the density of the clouds of dust would have been so extreme that once a star began to form there would be nothing to stop it becoming a giant black hole. That's why I posed the question.
I don't think we can impose the conventional star-making process that we observe today upon such a different environment that would have been present near the origin of the Universe.
This post was edited on 1/6/18 at 11:52 pm
Posted on 1/7/18 at 12:03 am to Kentucker
Hmm I’ll have to think about this and do some googling. What would have prevented black holes?
Posted on 1/7/18 at 7:56 am to Kentucker
quote:
I mean the density of the universe was far, far greater than was needed for the formation of black holes.
Maybe there were more than 4 forces of nature in the early universe. Maybe this unknown force of nature prevented the formation of black holes during the time you're describing.
I've long wondered if the birth of the universe wasn't brought about by a white hole. If the result of a black whole is a corresponding white hole, the laws governing them would create equally bizarre and extreme conditions. If nothing can escape the immense gravity of a black hole, then nothing could be captured by the immense force of "anti-gravity" in a white hole. In other words, a white hole would be a repellent force, taken to the extreme.
Perhaps this force of "anti-gravity" works on a very small scale, as well as, a very large scale. Maybe this is what dark energy is: a fifth force of nature that caused the rapid expansion of the universe, and will ultimately cause extreme expansion on an atomic, sub-atomic and universal scale. Have theoretical physicists explored any of this?
Posted on 1/7/18 at 8:14 am to Globetrotter747
I've always understood your distrust of theists. What I've never understood is the absolute need for some atheists to ridicule theists.
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:57 am to Perfect Circle
quote:
Maybe there were more than 4 forces of nature in the early universe. Maybe this unknown force of nature prevented the formation of black holes during the time you're describing.
Maybe, but if there weren't then it means that one or all of the forces, combined, were exerting a repulsive effect. In his research, Einstein identified a "repulsive gravity" but threw it out of his equations because he thought it was spurious. He later said this was the biggest blunder of his life. It's what we now call Dark Energy.
Wow! He could have saved us a hundred years of effort if he hadn't doubted his own genius. We might know what Dark Energy is, and maybe Dark Matter, too, if he had devoted more time to understanding it.
quote:
I've long wondered if the birth of the universe wasn't brought about by a white hole.
White holes have fallen out of favor since Stephen Hawking discovered that black holes emit what has logically been named "Hawking Radiation." This means that black holes evaporate over immense periods of time. Previously, white holes had been theorized as the "outlets" of black holes, and opened into a different spacetime.
quote:
Perhaps this force of "anti-gravity" works on a very small scale, as well as, a very large scale.
That's my idea, too. I think that gravity may work differently in different situations. It may periodically switch from an attractive to a repulsive force and then back again, if only, hopefully, on a cosmic scale and not locally.
Since we think that it's the spacetime field interacting with mass that generates gravity, this might make sense. Too much mass moving through space at great speeds might make gravity oscillate in this manner.
Posted on 1/7/18 at 12:07 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
I've always understood your distrust of theists. What I've never understood is the absolute need for some atheists to ridicule theists.
I won't speak for GT but I'll say that the great hostility of evangelical Christians towards atheism creates a logical distrust and defensiveness among atheists. Most American Christians have a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Christians, including atheists.
However, evangelicals are outright hostile towards non-Christian groups. The greatest conflicts between evangelicals and non-Christians come when evangelicals want to impose their beliefs on other groups via government action.
I don't think any non-Christian groups oppose evangelicals' need to "share the gospel," as annoying as it is, but draw a line when those attempts are done by taking over government. That's dangerous.
This post was edited on 1/7/18 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 1/7/18 at 3:37 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Assuming it doesn’t blow up on the launch pad... !
Ack! Don't even think that. I would probably just quit studying physics at all and get a hobby that doesn't require thinking.
I've never physically reacted to a post until I saw this one.
Literally fumbled my laptop for a second. ''Let's chill the frick out, okay?''
Posted on 1/7/18 at 6:21 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
It's just a bit of nerd panic. 
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News