Explain this whole "Big Bang" thing to me

This is a discussion on Explain this whole "Big Bang" thing to me within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by Perspective do you mean dark matter? Yes, thank you...

  1. #46
    UT2004 Addict Kleid-0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Perspective
    do you mean dark matter?
    Yes, thank you

  2. #47
    Registered /usr
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Newport, South Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,262
    Okay, I've just skimmed over most of the preceeding posts and biznitching, and forgive me for my insolence, but something about the initial explanation given for the Big Bang sounds fishy. It's almost as if time is perceived to be a "function" of light? Isn't time really a man-made measurement (like all ) to distinguish between one state of the universe and another? Obviously we never take the entire universe into account when we talk about it (I'd sell my soul for a camera that could capture everything), but that thing about light eventually bending into a single point doesn't say much except that there was a bang, not whether there was anything before it.

    Personally, I can't wait for the moment in time when everything bar one super-advanced human being has been wiped out as the universe implodes. They're floating in space, suited and booted for the environment, almost at the original point where it all started. The universe has almost fully reduced itself to that point, so all they can see is all light bending towards this dot. And as they start bending with it too, they exclaim: "Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..."

    Again, pardon me if I sound retarded. It's an approximately accurate description, to be fair.

  3. #48
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > And as they start bending with it too, they exclaim: "Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...

    I've always thought that'd be a great way to end a movie. Crappy chick flick or something, and then an asteroid hits the earth, obliterating everyone. The last line would be "What's that? Asteroid! AHHHH!"

  4. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    580
    And then it turns into a porno

    not that im into necrophilia or anything
    See you in 13

  5. #50
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Jez
    It's clearly (logically + philosophically) wrong to suggest that the universe can have any boundaries.
    Hmm, please elaborate. It is not 'clear' to me at least.
    Not that I belive the universe to have boundaries, but still. Stranger things have happend in the realm of physics.
    Time at least have one boundary, the beginning.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  6. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    580
    It's almost as if time is perceived to be a "function" of light?
    I don't know what you are referring to here. Is this in reference to the term 'lightyear'?

    It's actually almost the otherway around, sort of. You see, the 'faster' an object is moving (with respect to another object) the slower time passes for the object. This is why no matter how fast YOU are moving, light *always* travels at the speed of light *with respect to your frame of reference*. Light travels at 670 million miles per hour with respect to everything. If you are going 100 million miles an hour, and you turn a flashlight on, the photons of light *still* go 670 million miles per hour with respect to you, not 570 million miles per hour, but they also go 670 million miles per hour with respect to an object that is stationary. The reason this happens is because the passage through time depends on the passage through space. As the rate that you pass through space increases, the rate that you pass through time decreases, and the ratio between the two is ALWAYS equal to 670 million miles per hour. You can actually calculate how much time as slowed down if you know how fast you are going. You know that you think light *should* be going 570 million miles per hour with respect to your frame of reference, but that it actually goes 670 million miles per hour, so you can calculate the change in time.

    570 million miles / deltatime = 670 million miles per hour

    deltatime = 570 / 670

    Therefore when you are going 100 million miles per hour, your passage through time is .85 that of your passage through time when you were stationary.

    The problem with what I said above is this statement:

    "As the rate that you pass through space increases, the rate that you pass through time decreases"

    You see, I use the term 'rate', but rate implies that the quantity is changing with respect to some other variable, right? I.e, speed is displacement over time. You cannot measure speed without measuring the change in time, but you cannot measure the change in time accurately because it depends speed, but you cannot accurately know speed, recursive insanity. And, it's because space and time aren't 'absolute' quantities. The absolute quantity is believed to be 'spacetime'.

    Obviously we never take the entire universe into account when we talk about it (I'd sell my soul for a camera that could capture everything),
    This is exactly what spacetime is, and that's the best explanation for it: a snapshop of everything in the universe at every point in time (in spacetime!). However, there are some severe implications of this, i.e 'future' and 'past' are symmetric, and that the laws of physics cannot tell the difference between past and present. Your entire life is already laid out in spacetime, and the 'moment' you are living in is like somebody looking through a photoalbum, and your moment of reality is the page that is being looked at. However, an object that is moving faster looks at the pages differently, i.e something moving really fast can see a few pictures that are on the next few pages, and can also see a few pictures of the past few pages, and can also see what are you are looking at right now.

    EDIT:
    oh yeah, when you are going 30 miles per hour, here's what your passage of time looks like:

    (670x10^6-30) / 670 x 10^6 = 1 - (30 / 670x10^6) = .999999955

    The passage of time for a photon:

    0 (ageless)
    Last edited by Darkness; 01-13-2005 at 02:33 PM.
    See you in 13

  7. #52
    Jez
    Jez is offline
    The C-er
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    192
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jez
    It's clearly (logically + philosophically) wrong to suggest that the universe can have any boundaries.

    Hmm, please elaborate. It is not 'clear' to me at least.
    Not that I belive the universe to have boundaries, but still. Stranger things have happend in the realm of physics.
    Time at least have one boundary, the beginning.
    O.K. - the universe is all that is the case (Wittgenstein, I think, although I'm sure others have said the same before), so everything is in the universe. This is the only reasonable definition of what the universe is. So if there is a boundary, what's on the other side? Well there is no other side. By setting a boundary in space, you're effectively playing god, and drawing a circle on a blackboard, saying "this is the universe" (i.e. from a perspective standing outside it). It doesn't wash. Time also cannot be bound for the same reason. Note this doesn't mean that the universe is infinite, just as the surface of the earth is unbounded (from a 2D perspective) - you can keep walking without falling off the edge, but without being infinite.

    Lots of strange things happen in the realm of physics, but generally physicist don't know much philosophy, or even logic. That's why they spout so much hokum.

    Don't get me wrong, I love physics, I just think it's lost it's way. I've read some stuff recently which totally altered my world view on this, and I can't get on with all the nonsense that's talked about now. Dark matter for instance.

  8. #53
    UT2004 Addict Kleid-0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    656
    Haven't you guys ever played Super Mario 3 in battle mode!? Infinite space!

  9. #54
    Toaster Zach L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Jez
    Lots of strange things happen in the realm of physics, but generally physicist don't know much philosophy, or even logic. That's why they spout so much hokum.
    Err... I think you'd be surprised at how many do know a good bit about philosophy and logic. It is rather difficult to get much of anywhere in modern physics without those. I'll grant you that there are those who mindlessly seek formulae, but I've met many with rather philosophical minds.
    The word rap as it applies to music is the result of a peculiar phonological rule which has stripped the word of its initial voiceless velar stop.

  10. #55
    Cheesy Poofs! PJYelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,728
    >>Hmm... Didn't see that, but the book is quite good too.<<

    Excellent excellent book in my opinion, right now I'm about half way through. I'm a little curious though, how is string theory viewed these days? Are people taking it seriously as a viable theory or is it being viewed as just another crazy idea?

  11. #56
    Carnivore ('-'v) Hunter2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,879
    My physics teacher seems to think very highly of it. I would never have guessed that it might be "just another crazy idea", if you hadn't asked.
    Just Google It. √

    (\ /)
    ( . .)
    c(")(") This is bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

  12. #57
    Toaster Zach L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,686
    To my knowledge, it is regarded as a plausible theory. I know a number of universities teach courses in it, so presumably, its advocates are not in short supply.
    The word rap as it applies to music is the result of a peculiar phonological rule which has stripped the word of its initial voiceless velar stop.

  13. #58
    Cheesy Poofs! PJYelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,728
    Thats good to know! I only suggested that people might think ill of string theory simply because ideas to solve the gap between quantum and relativity (and astronomy/physics theories in general) seem to come and go like fads. Just when I start to like and understand one suddenly the physics community turns on it in favor of some new idea

  14. #59
    l'Anziano DavidP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Plano, Texas, United States
    Posts
    2,738
    im kind of busy and dont have time to read the whole thread, but my best comprehension of any of this comes through a simple song that I know. Here is the lyrics to the song:

    (By the way...in the context of this song, Kolob is supposed to be the star nearest to the place where God resides).

    1. If you could hie to Kolob
    In the twinkling of an eye,
    And then continue onward
    With that same speed to fly,
    Do you think that you could ever,
    Through all eternity,
    Find out the generation
    Where Gods began to be?

    2. Or see the grand beginning,
    Where space did not extend?
    Or view the last creation,
    Where Gods and matter end?
    Methinks the Spirit whispers,
    “No man has found ‘pure space,’
    Nor seen the outside curtains,
    Where nothing has a place.”

    3. The works of God continue,
    And worlds and lives abound;
    Improvement and progression
    Have one eternal round.
    There is no end to matter;
    There is no end to space;
    There is no end to spirit;
    There is no end to race.

    4. There is no end to virtue;
    There is no end to might;
    There is no end to wisdom;
    There is no end to light.
    There is no end to union;
    There is no end to youth;
    There is no end to priesthood;
    There is no end to truth.

    5. There is no end to glory;
    There is no end to love;
    There is no end to being;
    There is no death above.
    There is no end to glory;
    There is no end to love;
    There is no end to being;
    There is no death above.

    Text: William W. Phelps, 1792–1872
    Music: English melody, arr. Ralph Vaughan Williams, 1872–1958
    My Website

    "Circular logic is good because it is."

  15. #60
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    O.K. - the universe is all that is the case (Wittgenstein, I think, although I'm sure others have said the same before), so everything is in the universe. This is the only reasonable definition of what the universe is. So if there is a boundary, what's on the other side? Well there is no other side. By setting a boundary in space, you're effectively playing god, and drawing a circle on a blackboard, saying "this is the universe" (i.e. from a perspective standing outside it). It doesn't wash. Time also cannot be bound for the same reason. Note this doesn't mean that the universe is infinite, just as the surface of the earth is unbounded (from a 2D perspective) - you can keep walking without falling off the edge, but without being infinite.

    Lots of strange things happen in the realm of physics, but generally physicist don't know much philosophy, or even logic. That's why they spout so much hokum.

    Don't get me wrong, I love physics, I just think it's lost it's way. I've read some stuff recently which totally altered my world view on this, and I can't get on with all the nonsense that's talked about now. Dark matter for instance.
    I do not find the idea of a huge wall surrounding everything particularly plausible it's seems very wrong to me, and i don't think (though may be mistaken) that there are many cosmologists who advocate its existence, but i don't see it as logically impossible:

    such a barrier need not be defined from the "outside" we can easily define it from the "inside", there would still be no "other side", the concept of spacial dimensions would only extend as far as the barrier, "beyond" the barrier the concept of space would become meaningless.

    Nature does not care how weird we find it.

    note this doesn't mean that the universe is infinite, just as the surface of the earth is unbounded (from a 2D perspective) - you can keep walking without falling off the edge, but without being infinite.
    But surely the Earth is bound because the Earth exist in 3 dimensions.

    Lots of strange things happen in the realm of physics, but generally physicist don't know much philosophy, or even logic. That's why they spout so much hokum
    Physicists need philosophy as much as birds need ornithology. (that's not mine, i nicked it from Simon Singh).

    I recall once arguing with a philosophy major about quantum theory, he thought quantum mechanics was nonsense on the grounds that it violated his axioms of logic. So much for philosophical axioms. (ok so they are not total nonsense but they ONLY apply within the context of language something philosophy majors atleast, fail to grasp)

    Physicists know a great deal about logic, irrespective of whether they have studied it formally, and you will find that almost all theoretical physcists (working on big bang physics or string theory or the interpretation of QM) also know a lot amount about the _relevent_ philosophy; positivism, empiricism, realism, etc.
    Last edited by Clyde; 01-14-2005 at 04:55 AM.
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Saying the right thing, right time!
    By RoD in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-11-2005, 03:43 PM
  2. The program save some funny thing
    By nasa in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-18-2004, 09:37 AM
  3. A very strange thing
    By gustavosserra in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-15-2003, 12:43 PM
  4. Can someone explain this to me plz...
    By CAP in forum C Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-23-2002, 01:30 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21