Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-17-2006, 06:08 AM   #1
Ickybod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
"Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.

You can read the whole article here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/...smic_inflation
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 06:08 AM   #2
Ickybod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
"Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.

You can read the whole article here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/...smic_inflation
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 07:03 PM   #3
Coatsy
Senior Member
 
Coatsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London/Cambridge
Posts: 982
I saw a documentary about this several months ago. Très intéressant.

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams
Coatsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 07:03 PM   #4
Coatsy
Senior Member
 
Coatsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London/Cambridge
Posts: 982
I saw a documentary about this several months ago. Très intéressant.

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams
Coatsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 08:22 AM   #5
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
I am greatly interested in the whole BB phenomenon. So far, in all of the sources, both popular and scientific, that I have found, there has been no mention of the relation of proximity to the singularity, containing all of the mass/energy of the universe, to the flow of time itself. Since we know that time slows in a gravitational field so much that near the event horizon of a black hole, it "stops altogether" (relatively speaking, of course), what about time near the BB in its various early stages of development?

Guys, a little assistance here if you please? Astrophysics/cosmology is not my main scientific field.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 08:22 AM   #6
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
I am greatly interested in the whole BB phenomenon. So far, in all of the sources, both popular and scientific, that I have found, there has been no mention of the relation of proximity to the singularity, containing all of the mass/energy of the universe, to the flow of time itself. Since we know that time slows in a gravitational field so much that near the event horizon of a black hole, it "stops altogether" (relatively speaking, of course), what about time near the BB in its various early stages of development?

Guys, a little assistance here if you please? Astrophysics/cosmology is not my main scientific field.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 12:07 PM   #7
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Stern, your question is slightly misleading. Time is relative, of course, so the "rate" at which time flows "near the big bang" is meaningless because before the inflationary stage everything is near the big bang so it is the same for everything. It is only when different systems [observers] experience different gravitational fields that they experience time dilation effects relative to each other. there could be some weird corrections of course, but it seems likely that we can know generally what the gravitational fields were like (unless dark matter is much stranger than we think, which is possible if these quantum critical phase transitions are right). basically, the singularity containing all the mass energy of the universe only exists for the moment of the big bang, when there is no spacetime. As soon as there is spacetime (i.e., when the bang happens) it is no longer a singularity. Before the bang we can't say anythng because the las of physics break down when confronted with a singularity because almighty god hides his porno there, and after the big bang it's not a singularity anymore. I feel like I should add something about anal but I have nothing at the moment. Err, how about those brown dwarves?

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 12:07 PM   #8
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Stern, your question is slightly misleading. Time is relative, of course, so the "rate" at which time flows "near the big bang" is meaningless because before the inflationary stage everything is near the big bang so it is the same for everything. It is only when different systems [observers] experience different gravitational fields that they experience time dilation effects relative to each other. there could be some weird corrections of course, but it seems likely that we can know generally what the gravitational fields were like (unless dark matter is much stranger than we think, which is possible if these quantum critical phase transitions are right). basically, the singularity containing all the mass energy of the universe only exists for the moment of the big bang, when there is no spacetime. As soon as there is spacetime (i.e., when the bang happens) it is no longer a singularity. Before the bang we can't say anythng because the las of physics break down when confronted with a singularity because almighty god hides his porno there, and after the big bang it's not a singularity anymore. I feel like I should add something about anal but I have nothing at the moment. Err, how about those brown dwarves?

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 12:41 PM   #9
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Quote:
Choobus wrote
Before the bang we can't say anythng because the laws of physics break down when confronted with a singularity ...
What about during the bang (assuming 'during' even has meaning here)? If all this hoo-ha filled observable space in a trillionth of a trillionth of a sec, then wasn't shit flying many times faster than the speed of light?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 12:41 PM   #10
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Quote:
Choobus wrote
Before the bang we can't say anythng because the laws of physics break down when confronted with a singularity ...
What about during the bang (assuming 'during' even has meaning here)? If all this hoo-ha filled observable space in a trillionth of a trillionth of a sec, then wasn't shit flying many times faster than the speed of light?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 05:09 PM   #11
Rat Bastard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
In the early universe, in the femtosecond and shorter time frame, reality as we understand it may not likely apply. Part of the reason the US is launching so many infrared telescopes is because of the length of time elapsed since the origin of the universe. Most of the matter that is at the edge is what was there at the beginning, and to see past the rest of the universe to it, we have to pull tricks, like a) getting out of the atmosphere, and b) lurking in a Lagrange point with a quintuple solar umbrella (parasol, to you French guys) like the James Webb Space Telescope, (under development, or getting built, I forget which) to get away from the earth's heat. Point is, the beginning of the universe has some pretty exotic particles and behavior compared to now. Funny what 14+ Billion years will do for the flavor of the wine.

Damn ffs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 05:09 PM   #12
Rat Bastard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
In the early universe, in the femtosecond and shorter time frame, reality as we understand it may not likely apply. Part of the reason the US is launching so many infrared telescopes is because of the length of time elapsed since the origin of the universe. Most of the matter that is at the edge is what was there at the beginning, and to see past the rest of the universe to it, we have to pull tricks, like a) getting out of the atmosphere, and b) lurking in a Lagrange point with a quintuple solar umbrella (parasol, to you French guys) like the James Webb Space Telescope, (under development, or getting built, I forget which) to get away from the earth's heat. Point is, the beginning of the universe has some pretty exotic particles and behavior compared to now. Funny what 14+ Billion years will do for the flavor of the wine.

Damn ffs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 08:06 PM   #13
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
This is along the lines I'm talking about. If we graph time from an "outside" perspective back to the BB instant, I'm thinking that it approaches zero asymptotically. If that were true, and I have no data which is why I'm asking the neighborhood astrophysicists, then we would have both a beginning of the universe at the BB AND the universe existing for all previous time. It would be as though one could meaningfully say that the BB occurred at time = negative infinity.

At least that's how I would design reality if I had been in charge, like, forever.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 08:06 PM   #14
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
This is along the lines I'm talking about. If we graph time from an "outside" perspective back to the BB instant, I'm thinking that it approaches zero asymptotically. If that were true, and I have no data which is why I'm asking the neighborhood astrophysicists, then we would have both a beginning of the universe at the BB AND the universe existing for all previous time. It would be as though one could meaningfully say that the BB occurred at time = negative infinity.

At least that's how I would design reality if I had been in charge, like, forever.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2006, 11:41 AM   #15
baconeatingatheistjew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Ouch, my head hurts:

http://baconeatingatheistjew.blogspo...nally-got.html

I know, another shameless blog promotion. But I don't make any money on it, so ethically I can justify it.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:51 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational