Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?

How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang? - Physics Forum

How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang? - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-15-2007, 01:33 AM
sdr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?



How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive
By KENNETH CHANG
Published in New York Times April 12, 2007

An experiment some hoped would reveal a new class of
subatomic particles, and perhaps even point to clues
about why the universe exists at all, has instead
produced a first round of results that are
mysteriously inconclusive. "What we got was
intellectually interesting," said Janet M. Conrad,
professor of physics at Columbia University and a
spokeswoman for a collaboration that involves 77
scientists at 17 institutions. "We have to figure out
what it is."

Dr. Conrad and William C. Louis, a physicist at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, presented their initial
findings in a talk yesterday at the Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, outside Chicago, where the
experiment is being performed. The goal was to confirm
or refute observations made in the 90s in a Los Alamos
experiment that observed transformations in the
evanescent but bountiful particles known as neutrinos.
Neutrinos have no electrical charge and almost no
mass, but there are so many of them that they could
collectively outweigh all the stars in the universe.

Many physicists remain skeptical about the Los Alamos
findings, but the new experiment has attracted wide
interest. The Fermilab auditorium was filled with some
800 people, and talks were given at the 16 additional
institutions by other collaborating scientists. That
reflected in part the hope of finding cracks in the
Standard Model, which encapsulates physicists' current
knowledge about fundamental particles and forces. The
Standard Model has proved remarkably effective and
accurate, but it cannot answer some fundamental
questions, like why the universe did not completely
annihilate itself an instant after the Big Bang.

[The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
result of an evolution--and as with any
evolution, there is always enough time
allowed for all the factors involved to bring
about the overall harmony and consistency
which eventually gives the impression to
those who believe (like those who believe
that the universe erupted magically from the
Big Bang Bean), those who believe that all
the problems HAD to have been solved from the
start... and that therefore the only possible
answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
without it arguing a God).]

'The solution has been available for everyone
to read it since the last century now on the
internet. You can find it at:

[Only registered users see links. ]

What the "neutrino results" described below
are actually hinting at is the fact that the
universe is a LOT older and considerably more
extensive than heretofore "conventionally"
suspected. SDR]

The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since
matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they
come in contact, that would have left nothing to
coalesce into stars and galaxies. There must be some
imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight
preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that
extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible
universe.

The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding
in the dynamics of neutrinos: Neutrinos come in three
known types, or flavors. And they can change flavor as
they travel, a process that can occur only because of
the smidgen of mass they carry. But the neutrino
transformations reported in the Los Alamos data do not
fit the three-flavor model, suggesting four flavors of
neutrinos, if not more. Other data, from experiments
elsewhere, have said the additional neutrinos would
have to be "sterile" - completely oblivious to the
rest of the universe except for gravity.

The new experiment is called MiniBooNE. (BooNE,
pronounced boon, is a contraction of Booster Neutrino
Experiment. "Booster" refers to a Fermilab booster
ring that accelerates protons, and "mini" was added
because of plans for a second, larger stage to the
research.) MiniBooNE sought to count the number of
times one flavor of neutrino, called a muon, turned
into another flavor, an electron neutrino. The
experiment slams a beam of protons into a piece of
beryllium, and the cascade of particles from the
subatomic wreckage includes muon neutrinos that fly
about 1,650 feet to a detection chamber, a tank 40
feet in diameter that contains 250,000 gallons of
mineral oil. Most of the neutrinos fly through
unscathed, but occasionally a neutrino crashes into a
carbon atom in the mineral oil. That sets off another
cascade of particles, which is detected by 1,280 light
detectors mounted on the inside of the tank. From the
pattern of the cascades, the physicists distinguish
whether the incoming neutrino was of muon flavor or
electron. To minimize the chances of fooling
themselves, they deliberately did not look at any of
the electron neutrino events until they felt they had
adequately understood the much more common muon
neutrino events. They finally "opened the box" on
their electron neutrino data on March 26 and began the
analysis leading to their announcement yesterday.

For most of the neutrino energy range they looked at,
they did not see any more electron neutrinos than
would be predicted by the Standard Model. That ruled
out the simplest ways of interpreting the Los Alamos
neutrino data, Dr. Conrad and Dr. Louis said. But at
the lower energies, the scientists did see more
electron neutrinos than predicted: 369, rather than
the predicted 273. That may simply mean that some
calculations are off. Or it could point to a subtler
interplay of particles, known and unknown.

"It's tantalizing," said Boris Kayser, a Fermilab
physicist not on the MiniBooNE project. "It could be
real. But this remains to be established." Dr. Louis
said he was surprised by the results. "I was sort of
expecting a clear excess or no excess," he said. "In a
sense, we got both."


S D Rodrian
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]

All religions are local. Only science is universal.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-15-2007, 05:41 PM
B-Hate-Me
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?


"sdr" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1176600807.787143.17900@e65g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...

Not according to "M" theory, which is pretty much
accepted as the standard model.



*I* can



That's just not true. It was a minimum of 300 parts
matter to 1 part anti-matter.


Your "theory" leaves a lot to be desired.

For one, it fails to account for the thermobaric properties
of the early universe.

The early universe was basically plasma made up of
elementary particles....Quarks, etc.

This was less that a billionth of a second after "go".


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-15-2007, 05:41 PM
B-Hate-Me
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?


"sdr" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1176600807.787143.17900@e65g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...

Not according to "M" theory, which is pretty much
accepted as the standard model.



*I* can



That's just not true. It was a minimum of 300 parts
matter to 1 part anti-matter.


Your "theory" leaves a lot to be desired.

For one, it fails to account for the thermobaric properties
of the early universe.

The early universe was basically plasma made up of
elementary particles....Quarks, etc.

This was less that a billionth of a second after "go".


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-15-2007, 09:17 PM
greysky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?


"sdr" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1176600807.787143.17900@e65g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...


Physicists today are running experiments whose outcomes I predictd 25 years
ago... Yawn.


The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to do
with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason any
matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and antimatter
were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the universe
would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that would
escape, and it is this which we are living in today.

Greysky

[Only registered users see links. ]
Learn how to build a FTL radio.




Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-15-2007, 09:17 PM
greysky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?


"sdr" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1176600807.787143.17900@e65g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...


Physicists today are running experiments whose outcomes I predictd 25 years
ago... Yawn.


The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to do
with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason any
matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and antimatter
were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the universe
would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that would
escape, and it is this which we are living in today.

Greysky

[Only registered users see links. ]
Learn how to build a FTL radio.




Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-15-2007, 09:42 PM
Art Deco
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?

greysky <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


Evidence? Citation?

And you know this how?

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-15-2007, 09:42 PM
Art Deco
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?

greysky <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


Evidence? Citation?

And you know this how?

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-15-2007, 10:11 PM
sdr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?

On Apr 15, 6:09 pm, "[Only registered users see links. ]"
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

The statement above (as it applies to the title of
this thread) assumes almost EVERYTHING. Therefore
is really says NOTHING.

******************************************

On Apr 15, 6:41 pm, "B-Hate-Me"
<B-Hate-Me@home> wrote:
news:1176600807.787143.17900@e65g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...

[Only registered users see links. ]

[Only registered users see links. ]

[Only registered users see links. ]

'Nuf said...

There are many theories in this human condition
or ours (such as the universe-orbits-the-earth, or
the-earth-is-flat one, et al) which in their time
were thoroughly believed by the most prominent
and respected scientists/philosophers, and were
held to be the absolute God's Truth by the greatest
majority of living persons: That never meant for an
instant that they were true; and no matter the amount
of validation given them by the vast numbers of the
wise (sin hammers) that hammered away with them.
(Astronomers/mathematicians never missed a beat
describing/predicting with phenomenal accuracy the
"heavenly movements" of a universe that orbited our
little planet earth.)


I tend to believe that you indeed can. (I have no
doubt that if you set your brain to it you can also
prove that a mouse created the world.) Unfortunately
that is the nature of the brain. [Nothing personal.]

The fact underlying my statement above is basic
and incontrovertible: No matter what you may think
or wish, once you argue that "something came from
nothing" you are arguing GOD. In other words...
"magic." [That is why the Pope who believes that
"evolution is unproven" also loves Big Bang Theory.]

You cannot propose conditions in a pre-Big Bang
existence to be identical to those post-Big Bang,
otherwise you must find an alternate definition for
THE Big Bang itself ... than "THE Big Bang." And
therefore any attempt to rationalize the Big Bang
in terms of present-universe virtual particle theory
understanding is rather all "suspect" at best.

Get over it. Move on to another human epoch.
assumptions often/always contradicted by facts,
many or few. ... to a human epoch of proposals
based on facts NOT contradicted by any other
facts, or only contradicted by obvious prejudices).

The FACTS which contradict Big Bang theory are
not only many but growing almost at every step
taken by researches/thinkers. While there is not
one single fact yet discovered/proposed which
contradicts that the universe is an evolutionary
process in many ways very little different from
that which produces a black hole (only more so).
Which proposal is probably best espoused at:

[Only registered users see links. ]

I have no illusions about the human species. When
I posted my proposal I fully expected a century or
more would have to pass before most people finally
got sick of mental delusions and other stand-ins
for creationism and finally began to explore the FACT
that the universe is an evolutionary process and not
some magical trick. Almost a decade has passed. Now
all I need do is wait another 90-some more years...

S D Rodrian
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

re:


Why 300 and not 482 parts?!? I wonder...


Not "mine." Sorry. That's the conventional theory.

For my "theory" (or "conjecture," or "philosophy,"
however you wish to characterize it) you must go to:

[Only registered users see links. ]


You will need to prove the "elementary" nature of
any "particle" you propose to be "elementary." [You
do this, and you have produced the particle that GOD
held in His hand when He created Existence! WOW.]


You will need to produce the clock with which
you measured that span of "time." That clock HAD
to exist "outside" the universe, of course, otherwise
it will be impossible to imagine that it "ticked"
along unaffected by the "speed" at which the rest
of the universe was moving. In other words: How
on earth could you possibly prove that the billionth
of a second you're talking about above didn't take
billions/zillions of centuries to "take place?" We
need to examine THAT clock against our conventional
clocks to see if they agree, somehow. [Really crazy,
isn't it! Yes: That's how we can tell some "theories"
don't really hold water, ole boy.] SDR


*********************************************

On Apr 15, 9:46 pm, [Only registered users see links. ].nz wrote:

A unified verse, as opposed to a disparate verse:

A universe that is unified.
As opposed to one that's fried.

(Untied.)












..

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-15-2007, 10:11 PM
sdr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?

On Apr 15, 6:09 pm, "[Only registered users see links. ]"
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

The statement above (as it applies to the title of
this thread) assumes almost EVERYTHING. Therefore
is really says NOTHING.

******************************************

On Apr 15, 6:41 pm, "B-Hate-Me"
<B-Hate-Me@home> wrote:
news:1176600807.787143.17900@e65g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...

[Only registered users see links. ]

[Only registered users see links. ]

[Only registered users see links. ]

'Nuf said...

There are many theories in this human condition
or ours (such as the universe-orbits-the-earth, or
the-earth-is-flat one, et al) which in their time
were thoroughly believed by the most prominent
and respected scientists/philosophers, and were
held to be the absolute God's Truth by the greatest
majority of living persons: That never meant for an
instant that they were true; and no matter the amount
of validation given them by the vast numbers of the
wise (sin hammers) that hammered away with them.
(Astronomers/mathematicians never missed a beat
describing/predicting with phenomenal accuracy the
"heavenly movements" of a universe that orbited our
little planet earth.)


I tend to believe that you indeed can. (I have no
doubt that if you set your brain to it you can also
prove that a mouse created the world.) Unfortunately
that is the nature of the brain. [Nothing personal.]

The fact underlying my statement above is basic
and incontrovertible: No matter what you may think
or wish, once you argue that "something came from
nothing" you are arguing GOD. In other words...
"magic." [That is why the Pope who believes that
"evolution is unproven" also loves Big Bang Theory.]

You cannot propose conditions in a pre-Big Bang
existence to be identical to those post-Big Bang,
otherwise you must find an alternate definition for
THE Big Bang itself ... than "THE Big Bang." And
therefore any attempt to rationalize the Big Bang
in terms of present-universe virtual particle theory
understanding is rather all "suspect" at best.

Get over it. Move on to another human epoch.
assumptions often/always contradicted by facts,
many or few. ... to a human epoch of proposals
based on facts NOT contradicted by any other
facts, or only contradicted by obvious prejudices).

The FACTS which contradict Big Bang theory are
not only many but growing almost at every step
taken by researches/thinkers. While there is not
one single fact yet discovered/proposed which
contradicts that the universe is an evolutionary
process in many ways very little different from
that which produces a black hole (only more so).
Which proposal is probably best espoused at:

[Only registered users see links. ]

I have no illusions about the human species. When
I posted my proposal I fully expected a century or
more would have to pass before most people finally
got sick of mental delusions and other stand-ins
for creationism and finally began to explore the FACT
that the universe is an evolutionary process and not
some magical trick. Almost a decade has passed. Now
all I need do is wait another 90-some more years...

S D Rodrian
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

re:


Why 300 and not 482 parts?!? I wonder...


Not "mine." Sorry. That's the conventional theory.

For my "theory" (or "conjecture," or "philosophy,"
however you wish to characterize it) you must go to:

[Only registered users see links. ]


You will need to prove the "elementary" nature of
any "particle" you propose to be "elementary." [You
do this, and you have produced the particle that GOD
held in His hand when He created Existence! WOW.]


You will need to produce the clock with which
you measured that span of "time." That clock HAD
to exist "outside" the universe, of course, otherwise
it will be impossible to imagine that it "ticked"
along unaffected by the "speed" at which the rest
of the universe was moving. In other words: How
on earth could you possibly prove that the billionth
of a second you're talking about above didn't take
billions/zillions of centuries to "take place?" We
need to examine THAT clock against our conventional
clocks to see if they agree, somehow. [Really crazy,
isn't it! Yes: That's how we can tell some "theories"
don't really hold water, ole boy.] SDR


*********************************************

On Apr 15, 9:46 pm, [Only registered users see links. ].nz wrote:

A unified verse, as opposed to a disparate verse:

A universe that is unified.
As opposed to one that's fried.

(Untied.)












..

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-15-2007, 10:32 PM
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?

> >The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to do

does this mean a beta decay sample gets heavier and heavier over time

meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
impeach the bastard - the airtight garage has you neo
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bang , big , survive , universe


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is Gravity? sdr@sdrodrian.com Physics Forum 1 01-27-2008 02:53 PM
The Achilles Heel of String Theory. S D Rodrian Physics Forum 7 07-08-2006 02:40 PM
The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian SDR Physics Forum 5 02-16-2005 07:41 AM
Breakthrough in Cosmology Kazmer Ujvarosy Botany Forum 0 05-21-2004 06:50 AM
Breakthrough in Cosmology Kazmer Ujvarosy Forum Biologie 0 05-21-2004 06:32 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.27558 seconds with 16 queries