|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:58 am
This is older one, about the quark-gluon plasma ... Quark-Gluon Plasma recreation, HERE.Eh eh, but the one I really wanna talk about is... Mini Big Bang put off til '08So, milliseconds after the big bang... I've been trying to so hard to find the article that tells more about the conditions they're putting up. I read it in a magazine, I forget which one. They 're going to drop the temperature down to 2.6 (?) Kelvin, I do believe, and make the particles go somewhere around 99% of light speed. I could be wrong, since this is from memory. HOWEVER. None of these articles say what was going ON "milliseconds" after the big bang. None at allll. They're doing this underground, and for lack of information, my mind could run off and be "lol we're all going to die =D" ... Miles wide, across borders.... Whatever else. So. Please. Discuss: what is LIKELY to happen when they actually do this experiment? And possible ramifications of certain predictions being proven true? Etc.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:20 pm
We are already doing these sorts of experiments. The LHC is just the much vaunted new accelerator. Fermilab's Tevatron is currently in operation colliding particles at high energy in the world [albeit at seven times less energy that the LHC expected reach because it's much older than the LHC].
It is not really conducting mini-Big Bangs, the aim is to get closers to the sorts of energies that the Big Bang was like to see how particles behave. It allows insight into what could have happened at the Big Bang.
The 2.6 K would refer to something like superconducting magnets or coolant because these machines generate a lot of heat but need to be as cold as possible for maximum efficiency. It does not refer to temperature of the collisions because they are going to be very very very hot [think of the energies involved!]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:28 pm
Forget that, let's recreate what happened between the big bang and a planck time after it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:57 pm
A Lost Iguana We are already doing these sorts of experiments. The LHC is just the much vaunted new accelerator. Fermilab's Tevatron is currently in operation colliding particles at high energy in the world [albeit at seven times less energy that the LHC expected reach because it's much older than the LHC]. It is not really conducting mini-Big Bangs, the aim is to get closers to the sorts of energies that the Big Bang was like to see how particles behave. It allows insight into what could have happened at the Big Bang. The 2.6 K would refer to something like superconducting magnets or coolant because these machines generate a lot of heat but need to be as cold as possible for maximum efficiency. It does not refer to temperature of the collisions because they are going to be very very very hot [think of the energies involved!] So the news hypes it up? I understand it isn't the actual big bang, but almost immediately after... etc. etc. I know that would probably be the starting temperature, and all that... chea. Howeveerrr... What will be different specifically from the older ones to this one? 6x ? Dizamns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:38 pm
I think what the question really is, is what was happening milliseconds before the Big Bang (yes I know there was supposedly no time before the Big Bang)
I mean if the Big Bang did happen, something must have caused it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:56 am
Dewdew I think what the question really is, is what was happening milliseconds before the Big Bang (yes I know there was supposedly no time before the Big Bang) I mean if the Big Bang did happen, something must have caused it. But if spacetime was created when the Big Bang occured, then there is no causation before the Big Bang.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:03 pm
poweroutage Dewdew I think what the question really is, is what was happening milliseconds before the Big Bang (yes I know there was supposedly no time before the Big Bang) I mean if the Big Bang did happen, something must have caused it. But if spacetime was created when the Big Bang occured, then there is no causation before the Big Bang. Hmmm... Even so, how did it happen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:58 am
Intricate Labyrinth poweroutage Dewdew I think what the question really is, is what was happening milliseconds before the Big Bang (yes I know there was supposedly no time before the Big Bang) I mean if the Big Bang did happen, something must have caused it. But if spacetime was created when the Big Bang occurred, then there is no causation before the Big Bang. Hmmm... Even so, how did it happen? There was an expanding ball of stuff. Or, more properly, In the Beginning, there was an expanding ball of spacetime that was full of everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:55 pm
Intricate Labyrinth But if spacetime was created when the Big Bang occured, then there is no causation before the Big Bang. While that is essentially true, it's important to remember that equations and models regarding the big bang are empiricle. So while we know nothing 'caused' the big bang in the vernacular sense, cosmologists still strive to uncover the laws and mathematical relationships that govern the big bang.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:28 am
Some of you people have to realize that the Big Bang is not the definite beginning of the universe. For newtons law of action and reaction show that the big bang should have had a cause. I hypothesize that time is infinite for past as well as future, and that the big bang that caused the construction of our universe was triggered by the collapse of the past universe and etc. The collapse was caused by the high concentration of matter at the theoretical center of the universe that was designated by the concentration of stars that developed by the big bang.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:35 pm
Leon_Everest Some of you people have to realize that the Big Bang is not the definite beginning of the universe. For newtons law of action and reaction show that the big bang should have had a cause. I hypothesize that time is infinite for past as well as future, and that the big bang that caused the construction of our universe was triggered by the collapse of the past universe and etc. The collapse was caused by the high concentration of matter at the theoretical center of the universe that was designated by the concentration of stars that developed by the big bang. Newton's third law says nothing about causes; it's a statement about the reflexivity of internal forces, nothing more. There is no sense of cause, or time, or anything of the sort in Newton's third law. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" mentions nothing about causes or time. If one runs the universe backwards according to the laws of General Relativity, which have superseded Newton's laws, in case you haven't heard, then you'll find that there is a singularity approximately 13 billion years ago, beyond which time doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:48 pm
Layra-chan Leon_Everest Some of you people have to realize that the Big Bang is not the definite beginning of the universe. For newtons law of action and reaction show that the big bang should have had a cause. I hypothesize that time is infinite for past as well as future, and that the big bang that caused the construction of our universe was triggered by the collapse of the past universe and etc. The collapse was caused by the high concentration of matter at the theoretical center of the universe that was designated by the concentration of stars that developed by the big bang. Newton's third law says nothing about causes; it's a statement about the reflexivity of internal forces, nothing more. There is no sense of cause, or time, or anything of the sort in Newton's third law. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" mentions nothing about causes or time. If one runs the universe backwards according to the laws of General Relativity, which have superseded Newton's laws, in case you haven't heard, then you'll find that there is a singularity approximately 13 billion years ago, beyond which time doesn't exist. But still, if you see a ball rolling accelerating across the ground you know there must have been some force that caused it right. In the same way, something must have caused the large force that started the Big bang. I have heard the 'parent' universe theory before. It kinda make sense, but still it shows that there must be eternity right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:15 am
Dewdew But still, if you see a ball rolling accelerating across the ground you know there must have been some force that caused it right. In the same way, something must have caused the large force that started the Big bang. I have heard the 'parent' universe theory before. It kinda make sense, but still it shows that there must be eternity right? Your analogy breaks down because there was no time before the Big Bang, and there can't be a cause and effect situation without time. The universe isn't a ball that's been pushed, it's a balloon filled with high-pressure air, in that the thing that makes it expand is coming from the inside, an internal rather than external force. If the balloon has always existed in this state since the beginning, then there is no "cause" for the balloon to expand; it expands because of its very existence. Asking what caused the balloon to exist is a nonsensical question since it assumes that there was a time when the balloon did not exist, when in fact the balloon has existed for all time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:52 pm
Layra-chan Dewdew But still, if you see a ball rolling accelerating across the ground you know there must have been some force that caused it right. In the same way, something must have caused the large force that started the Big bang. I have heard the 'parent' universe theory before. It kinda make sense, but still it shows that there must be eternity right? Your analogy breaks down because there was no time before the Big Bang, and there can't be a cause and effect situation without time. The universe isn't a ball that's been pushed, it's a balloon filled with high-pressure air, in that the thing that makes it expand is coming from the inside, an internal rather than external force. If the balloon has always existed in this state since the beginning, then there is no "cause" for the balloon to expand; it expands because of its very existence. Asking what caused the balloon to exist is a nonsensical question since it assumes that there was a time when the balloon did not exist, when in fact the balloon has existed for all time. How do you know there was no time before the Big Bang? Has it been proven? I'm just asking because I really can't understand the concept of something coming from nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:31 pm
WormHole How do you know there was no time before the Big Bang? Has it been proven? I'm just asking because I really can't understand the concept of something coming from nothing. According to General relativity and what we see from astronomical observations, if we run the universe backwards then we end up with everything coming together to a single point (this is the Big Bang in reverse). Because of the increase of the matter/energy density as we approach the Big Bang, this coming together also forces time to bend quite severely, and at the point of the Big Bang, there is no more backwards because every direction away from that point is "forward" in time. Consider the north pole. If you're at the north pole, every direction is south; there is no "north" of the north pole. Similarly, because of the time bending, the Big Bang is a time pole, the "past" pole, if you will; every direction away from this past pole is "south" or forward, into the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
