Big Bang - True or False?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by darksidZz, Mar 22, 2007.

?

Which are true?

Poll closed Apr 1, 2007.
  1. The Big Bang was an explosion

    57.1%
  2. The Big Bang theory doesn’t explain what caused it

    85.7%
  3. There’s no evidence for the Big Bang

    42.9%
  4. The Big Bang doesn’t leave room for God

    57.1%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    AT 300,000 years, photons decoupled from matter. This is the source of the CMB radiation. Before this time, the photons were stuck bouncing off of electrons, called Compton Scattering. Think of shooting a ping pong ball (the photon) into a very dense forrest. The ping pong ball will not go very far before it hits another tree, then another, and so on. Now, if the trees were slowly spreading apart, eventually there would be enough room between the trees so that the collisions are very rare. This is essentially what happened in the early universe.

    So in essence the radiation can "just wait around", although this comment is altogether meaningless.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Come on darksidZz---you should know noone ever reads the articles others link to.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Singularity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,287
    There is something wrong with my house bulb, as soon as its switched off darkness quickly takes over instead of waiting for the photons to bounce here and there.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ScottMana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    I have seen some of what is presented when you ask of evidence that the big bang occurred. But I have never seen any good evidence that proves it. Is there any?
     
  8. ScottMana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    I have read every link of yours in this thread.
     
  9. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Good. You're not an ordinary SciForums member. For what it's worth, I read links too.

    You mean other than the links that I posted?
     
  10. azizbey kodummu oturturum Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    129
    well, it is hard to explain to the minds which trapped in 4 dimensions, BB has happened in nothingness, not in space. since BB is the source and very reason of everything in existence, and vacuum space is one of them. as BB occurred , it created the vacumm space as it expanded. as i said, it is almost impossible to picture "nothingness" since as you try to comprehend, you ruin it unintentionally.
    well said
     
  11. azizbey kodummu oturturum Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    129
    theoretical physics says that, if the light source in a room with walls completely reflective, even if the light source turns off, photons will bounce back and forth forever. in your room, they are absorbed by the elements
    well said
     
  12. darksidZz Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,924
    Wow, that would be so neat! You could have umm? Everlasting light? Wouldn't that be like perpetual photons... impossible?
     
  13. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    No. If the collisions were perfectly ellastic (i.e. the walls were perfectly reflecting), then there is never any energy lost by the photons. So the photons would bounce in the room indefinitely. The problem with actually DOING this is that the walls would ostencibly be made of atoms. Atoms tend to absorb light, and the collisions will never be perfectly elastic---the neucleus of the incident atom recoils slightly due to the photon, and there is some energy loss.
     
  14. Singularity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,287
    But they dont absorb background radiation for 15 billion years, right ?
     
  15. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Not when the background radiation lives in mostly free space. THINK.
     
  16. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    why not?

    The Galaxyies are moving further appart there's a residual presence of radiation that is steadly declining. Forensics tell us there was shot fired. the decline of radiation tells us when. A projectile tells us from where the shot was fired.
     
  17. darksidZz Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,924
    Hey, so like even if ya could make perpetual light it would eventually hit you! Thus it would be absorbed into you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I thought for a minute you could make a room forever bright!
     
  18. Singularity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,287
    These experts are saying that light in closed room should not fade away, since this happens most efficiently in the universe without any WALLs

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    This is not possible because the atoms in the walls absorb the light.

    Sigh.
     
  20. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I'm starting to realise what Singularity's "incomprehendibility" applies to.... sometime he's verging on incomprehensibility.
     
  21. Singularity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,287
    Will u stop stalking me. U sexually deprived sticky bug.
     
  22. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Short answer - no. Not as long as you keep posting inane drivel. But "stalking"? It is to laugh. Your ego is as inflated as your knowledge of science is small.
    Ouch - quite patently the most most wounding epithet ever applied on SF. (Seriously dude, you got to learn some better insults, or at least more accurate - the only factual thing that could apply to me in that was "u")
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2007

Share This Page