RandallB said:
?...I'm not sure if your joking or just haven't read about the big bang.
Actually, no, I wasn't joking. Maybe I should give you some background so you'll understand where I'm coming from. Right now, though, I'll address what you said about Crumbles' concern over "getting ahead" of our own light being unfounded.
In one sense, it is technically unfounded, yes. However, you have to consider possible scenarios before assuming why Crumbles came to that conclusion. For instance, it's been said more than once that scientists now have pictures of the Big Bang. Some of these statements may or may not have mentioned that these photos were actually pictures of what happened
immediately after the big bang but the bottom line was that there was no further explanation given.
Based upon such a short statement with no details given, one might easily conclude that the "pictures" or light (pictures brings to mind "light" being involved) should be propelled further from the point of origin than we (matter) are.
The replies given to Crumbles have somewhat filled in more of the details about what the pictures of the big bang really are. But based upon the type of scenario I mentioned, it's completely understandable, in my
opinion, how Crumbles first got the idea and it was actually a very perceptive observation.
As for me, I do not know much about the big bang. What little I know, you will find conveniently embedded in the following paragraphs, where as I promised, I would give you my background.
First off, I hope you don't assume that everyone who comes to Dr. Kaku's forum are highly educated or knowledgeable on every detail of physics.
Dr. Kaku speaks to the general public, not just to academicians. I fit the first category. I'm fairly good at spelling and somewhat articulate and maybe that
might seem incompatible with the fact that I'm not very educated- didn't get past 7th grade science and never took biology, chemistry or geometry. And I'm quite certain that there are many other Michio Kaku fans in
similar boats.
What made my educational upbringing worse was that in those days ADD was unheard of and teachers assumed that a lack of concentration must be volitional (daydreaming) or that the student was simply stupid.
Fortunately, my ability to concentrate has gotten better in recent years. For reasons such as this, I believe that people who are gifted intellectually are
even more obligated than anyone else to treat everyone respectfully as if they are their intellectual equals.
If someone is uninformed, why not inform them with a humble disposition? Educating others is a privilege. I suspect that Doc feels this way, also. His demeanor is never haughty, even when the silliest of questions (aliens, especially) is directed at him. This kind of humility is a common
trait among many successful people.
What I have heard of the Big Bang is that there was no empty space, basically nothingness before it occured. Some single, very dense, very hot (is it called a singularity?) came into being out of God-knows-where and it cooled and its denseness disintegrated as it expanded.
The analogy of an explosion sounds as close as any other description that I can think of comparing it to. But of course there was no air, no empty space as is required for a regular explosion.
Do I understand correctly that space, itself, was created as a result of the expansion? Here's how I picture the big bang. If you are old enough to have ever watched the Flintstones, perhaps you recall watching the little alien, Gazoo, pop into existence from apparent nothingness. Using this as a comparison to the big bang is, of course, flawed from the aspect that he's popping into an existing space as opposed to the big bang popping into nothingness. I don't believe in nothingness, to be honest, but the big bang from nothingness is so commonly referenced, Gazoo is the only way I can picture the big bang.
The academic world has largely ignored the overwhelming prevalence of learning disorders. Those who have them have to work twice as hard as everyone else. So, there's no excuse for being impatient with or patronizing someone who simply wants to learn a certain subject but who might be having difficulty in some areas.
I like Dr. Kaku's teaching approach. Whether he's educating the public or just speaking to his students or colleagues, he's able to describe things in such
broad terms that make him easily understood.
He may not always be as detailed as other teachers (Brian Greene as an example) but he is so very clear on what he does describe.
Many of us may not have his gift of explaining physics so coherently, which can be exasperating, but it's important not to take that out on the person(s) we speak to.
Shall we continue?
First "Big Bang" is just a name - it does not mean 'explosion'
Yes the universe IS transparent - look up at night we see stars with light moving through the universe to see them by ie. transparent.
The BB point: Is that at some point in the past (but not all the way back to the start of the BB) the universe was was to dense for light to move. To much matter for light to move though or get around.
Much like we cannot see the Sun while we look at the stars - there is a locally dense area of mass in the way. We call it Earth.
Untill the stuff got out of the way, giving a little room for light to move somewhere without being absorbed by something, there could be no start to CBR.
Therfore, the universe as it started according to BB could not have any CBR moving about until the universe itself became transparent to light.
So, Crumbles concern about "getting ahead" of our own light is unfounded. We are seeing the light "CBR" from someone elses beginning mass not our own. CRB cannot reach all the way back to the very start of BB.[/QUOTE]
