Big bang as a decay process instead of a bang?

sunshaker said:
Perhaps another dimensional civilisations proton proton collision. Cern's proton proton collisions, decay, perhaps these "decays" are the big bangs for other universes.
Click to expand...
In what way is it accurate to describe the consequences of a proton-proton collision as a decay. Your use of quotation marks around decay suggests you do not believe it to be, technically, a decay.

So my question for the OP remains: what is decaying?
 
So you do not believe in the Laws of Conservation? What evidence do you have that mass and energy are being lost?
 
BdS said:
The starting blobs mass is decaying into a greater volume, nothing is lost.
Click to expand...
You specifically stated that decaying involves "Loosing mass/energy slowly".

If I substitute your definition of decaying in your quoted sentence then the result is:
"The starting blob's mass is loosing mass/energy slowly into a greater volume, nothing is lost."

That is a a clear contradiction and as such makes the sentence nonsense. Please explain.

If we remove the contradiction then what you appear to be saying is that the expansion of the universe results in the universe expanding. That is hardly news!
 
Ophiolite said:
You specifically stated that decaying involves "Loosing mass/energy slowly".

If I substitute your definition of decaying in your quoted sentence then the result is:
"The starting blob's mass is loosing mass/energy slowly into a greater volume, nothing is lost."

That is a a clear contradiction and as such makes the sentence nonsense. Please explain.

If we remove the contradiction then what you appear to be saying is that the expansion of the universe results in the universe expanding. That is hardly news!
Click to expand...

I suppose one could tentatively make some sense of this by suggesting what may be "decaying" is the degree of order in the universe. As it expands the energy is more spread out, i.e. cooler, as per CMBR for example, and entropy is increased.

But the OP suggests the decay causes the expansion, rather than the (observed) expansion being responsible for the entropy increase (?="decay" of order), so that part of it still requires explanation.
 
exchemist said:
I suppose one could tentatively make some sense of this by suggesting what may be "decaying" is the degree of order in the universe. As it expands the energy is more spread out, i.e. cooler, as per CMBR for example, and entropy is increased.

But the OP suggests the decay causes the expansion, rather than the (observed) expansion being responsible for the entropy increase (?="decay" of order), so that part of it still requires explanation.
Click to expand...
I suspect the OP has not thought deeply enough about the topic and is making vague generalisations that come dangerously close to being word salad. I am hoping that my questioning may lead them either to recognising this, or to educating me as to what I am missing, or enable them to state their ideas with greater clarity.
 
BdS said:
Loosing mass/energy slowly while it reduces its density from the central blob it began at.
Click to expand...
I think you are trying to say the density of the energy and mass is decreasing due to the increasing volume of space. So there is no loss of energy/mass, it is simply spread out more so there is less energy/mass per unit volume.
 
origin said:
I think you are trying to say the density of the energy and mass is decreasing due to the increasing volume of space. So there is no loss of energy/mass, it is simply spread out more so there is less energy/mass per unit volume.
Click to expand...
If that is what they are attempting to say then:
1. It is trivial, obvious, well understood and hardly worth remarking on.
2. They have chosen a singularly inappropriate word to describe it: decaying.

So, perhaps there is something more subtle they wish to get across.
 
Ophiolite said:
If that is what they are attempting to say then:
1. It is trivial, obvious, well understood and hardly worth remarking on.
2. They have chosen a singularly inappropriate word to describe it: decaying.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
So, perhaps there is something more subtle they wish to get across.
Click to expand...
Based on past history - the point will more than likely not be subtle it will instead be wrong.
 
Ophiolite said:
I suspect the OP has not thought deeply enough about the topic and is making vague generalisations that come dangerously close to being word salad. I am hoping that my questioning may lead them either to recognising this, or to educating me as to what I am missing, or enable them to state their ideas with greater clarity.
Click to expand...
Fair enough - and good luck in your enterprise!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top