Questions about the origin of the universe

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kasse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Origin Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the origins of the universe, specifically addressing questions related to the Big Bang theory, the nature of time, the possibility of an infinite universe, and the implications of current scientific experiments. Participants explore theoretical and conceptual aspects of cosmology and physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether time was created in the Big Bang and what it could have been created from.
  • There is a proposal that the universe might be infinite in space, matter/energy, or time, with some arguing against the idea of time having a beginning.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of the universe's expansion and whether it will continue indefinitely, with references to critical density parameters.
  • One participant argues that the Big Bang theory is flawed, suggesting that mass could not have originated from nothing and proposing an alternative involving parallel universes and black holes.
  • Others defend the Big Bang theory, citing observational support and clarifying that it describes an expansion rather than an explosion.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of time, with some asserting that it is finite and discrete, while others question the evidence for this view.
  • Participants express concerns regarding scientific experiments, particularly those conducted at CERN, and their potential consequences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the nature of time, the validity of the Big Bang theory, or the implications of current scientific experiments. Disagreements persist regarding the origins of mass and the concept of time.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various scientific theories and concepts, but there are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the nature of time and the origins of the universe. Some claims remain unverified or speculative.

  • #91
Kronos5253 said:
True, but that's most likely because you'd have to observe a black hole for an extremely long period of time before you'd notice any fluctuations in mass or density.

I know about the micro-BH from the LHC.. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis though. The immense amount of density and the resulting rapid rise in gravitational pull from a collapsing star is what causes a BH in the first place (theoretically speaking of course), so how could a micro-BH even exist? A micro-BH might as well just be called a micro-explosion, because the density and amount of matter produced from 2 electrons colliding is nowhere near enough to create a BH. It would be similar to a smaller star collapsing.

If just doing that could create micro-BH, then any star that collapses would inevitibly turn into a black hole, and we already know that isn't true. The star has to be large enough and have enough mass to produce enough density to create a BH.

I just think it's a ridiculous notion lol But that's just an opinion :)

No takers or arguments to this?

I make a valid point correct?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #92
Kronos5253 said:
True, but that's most likely because you'd have to observe a black hole for an extremely long period of time before you'd notice any fluctuations in mass or density.

Exactly, and this timescale is a great many magnitudes larger than that of a human life span. There would have to some monster of a physical mechanism yet to be discovered that causes a rapid mass-loss rate that is observable.

Kronos5253 said:
I know about the micro-BH from the LHC.. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis though. The immense amount of density and the resulting rapid rise in gravitational pull from a collapsing star is what causes a BH in the first place (theoretically speaking of course), so how could a micro-BH even exist? A micro-BH might as well just be called a micro-explosion, because the density and amount of matter produced from 2 electrons colliding is nowhere near enough to create a BH. It would be similar to a smaller star collapsing.

Actually, the LHC will collide protons, which are comprised of quarks. In simple terms, we can say that the apparent mass of some object (in this case a proton) increases as the object approaches the speed of light:

m_{apparent}= \frac{m_{rest}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}

Go ahead and put in something like v = .99999999 c to see what the apparent mass is. So you will have two protons with this apparent mass and now you should see that it is possible to have a large density in a small area.
 
  • #93
buffordboy23 said:
Exactly, and this timescale is a great many magnitudes larger than that of a human life span. There would have to some monster of a physical mechanism yet to be discovered that causes a rapid mass-loss rate that is observable.



Actually, the LHC will collide protons, which are comprised of quarks. In simple terms, we can say that the apparent mass of some object (in this case a proton) increases as the object approaches the speed of light:

m_{apparent}= \frac{m_{rest}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}

Go ahead and put in something like v = .99999999 c to see what the apparent mass is. So you will have two protons with this apparent mass and now you should see that it is possible to have a large density in a small area.

While that formula theory is facinating, looking at the result I got from the equation, it's still not near enough to form a black hole. The mass I got wasn't half that of our Sun, and our Sun will eventually become a white dwarf, not a black hole, because it doesn't have enough mass.

That concept (and equation) sheds new light on the subject for me though, even if I still don't find it to be plausible.

But thank you :) I appreciate it.
 
  • #94
Kronos5253 said:
While that formula theory is facinating, looking at the result I got from the equation, it's still not near enough to form a black hole. The mass I got wasn't half that of our Sun, and our Sun will eventually become a white dwarf, not a black hole, because it doesn't have enough mass.

It's not the total mass that is important here. It's the density. Calculate the densities and compare.
 
  • #95
buffordboy23 said:
It's not the total mass that is important here. It's the density. Calculate the densities and compare.

Gotcha.

:resigns:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
845
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K