Big Bang or Big Splat?

What's more likely. A Big Bang where everything starts from
a singularity or M-theory Big Splat (ekpyrotic scenerio)
where two higher dimensional colliding branes produced
the matter and energy in our universe??

Note that researchers said the two produced the same
result. We are mostly familiar with Big Bang where the
entire universe before inflation is just planck size.
Another model called Big Splat or ekpyrotic scenerio can
also cause the flatness of the horizon and space and
results in microwave background radiation too due to
the recombination of nuclei and electrons that released
the radiation and the responding expanding of space
causing the gamma rays and other higher rays to slowly
turn to microwave.

I think Big Splat (ekpyrotic scenerio) is more likely
than a Big Bang (which is a bit way off). What do you
think?

p6

On 10 Jul 2005 17:51:58 -0700, "p6" wrote:

What's more likely. A Big Bang where everything starts from
a singularity or M-theory Big Splat (ekpyrotic scenerio)
where two higher dimensional colliding branes produced
the matter and energy in our universe??

Note that researchers said the two produced the same
result. We are mostly familiar with Big Bang where the
entire universe before inflation is just planck size.
Another model called Big Splat or ekpyrotic scenerio can
also cause the flatness of the horizon and space and
results in microwave background radiation too due to
the recombination of nuclei and electrons that released
the radiation and the responding expanding of space
causing the gamma rays and other higher rays to slowly
turn to microwave.

I think Big Splat (ekpyrotic scenerio) is more likely
than a Big Bang (which is a bit way off). What do you
think?

I think it is unscientific to make what are, essentially, guesses as to
likelihood. Do you have any reason other then personal philosophy for
favoring one explanation over the other? On a personal scale, either is
mind boggling.

It has been proposed that there are actual observations possible that
can invalidate the colliding branes theory. For myself, I'll withhold
judgment until such observations are made.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 10 Jul 2005 17:51:58 -0700, "p6" wrote:

What's more likely. A Big Bang where everything starts from
a singularity or M-theory Big Splat (ekpyrotic scenerio)
where two higher dimensional colliding branes produced
the matter and energy in our universe??

Note that researchers said the two produced the same
result. We are mostly familiar with Big Bang where the
entire universe before inflation is just planck size.
Another model called Big Splat or ekpyrotic scenerio can
also cause the flatness of the horizon and space and
results in microwave background radiation too due to
the recombination of nuclei and electrons that released
the radiation and the responding expanding of space
causing the gamma rays and other higher rays to slowly
turn to microwave.

I think Big Splat (ekpyrotic scenerio) is more likely
than a Big Bang (which is a bit way off). What do you
think?

I think it is unscientific to make what are, essentially, guesses as to
likelihood. Do you have any reason other then personal philosophy for
favoring one explanation over the other? On a personal scale, either is
mind boggling.

It has been proposed that there are actual observations possible that
can invalidate the colliding branes theory. For myself, I'll withhold
judgment until such observations are made.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


A universe with billions and billions and billions of galaxies
that once fit inside a space smaller than the head of a pin is
just well, hmm.. a bit far out It takes almost infinite energy
to initiate the Inflation. It's like believing in God, isn't
it. In M-theory with multidimensional branes and all. The
mind bogglingness is more smeared because of more structural
support due to the two colliding branes imparting the energy
and matter of creation.

In 2008. Very sensitive gravity wave detectors will be deployed
in space. If they can detect the gravity wave effect from a Big
Bang. Then BB is the winner. Sometimes I just think BB is a bit
fantastic.

The original message is really meant for alternative cosmology
modelers and physics theoreticists in sci.physics.

Clear skies,

p6

On 10 Jul 2005 19:54:24 -0700, "p6" wrote:

A universe with billions and billions and billions of galaxies
that once fit inside a space smaller than the head of a pin is
just well, hmm.. a bit far out It takes almost infinite energy
to initiate the Inflation. It's like believing in God, isn't
it. In M-theory with multidimensional branes and all. The
mind bogglingness is more smeared because of more structural
support due to the two colliding branes imparting the energy
and matter of creation.

For me, any scenario for t0 (necessarily using "t" very casually here)
is mind boggling. I don't really have a sense that one mind boggling
thing can be more mind boggling than another g.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

A universe with billions and billions and billions of galaxies
that once fit inside a space smaller than the head of a pin is
just well, hmm.. a bit far out It takes almost infinite energy
to initiate the Inflation. It's like believing in God, isn't
it. In M-theory with multidimensional branes and all. The
mind bogglingness is more smeared because of more structural
support due to the two colliding branes imparting the energy
and matter of creation.

"a bit far out " Hmm, tell me then, as long as we are avoiding things
that ar far out, where did the branes come from? How do they have the matter
and energy to create this universe?

You are going to have something "far out" no matter which you go with.

;-)

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

To reply, remove Delete and change period com to period net
************************************************** ************

In 2008. Very sensitive gravity wave detectors will be deployed
in space. If they can detect the gravity wave effect from a Big
Bang. Then BB is the winner. Sometimes I just think BB is a bit
fantastic.

The original message is really meant for alternative cosmology
modelers and physics theoreticists in sci.physics.

Clear skies,

p6

and undoubtedly it will ... because it cant do anything else.


p6 wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 10 Jul 2005 17:51:58 -0700, "p6" wrote:

What's more likely. A Big Bang where everything starts from
a singularity or M-theory Big Splat (ekpyrotic scenerio)
where two higher dimensional colliding branes produced
the matter and energy in our universe??

Note that researchers said the two produced the same
result. We are mostly familiar with Big Bang where the
entire universe before inflation is just planck size.
Another model called Big Splat or ekpyrotic scenerio can
also cause the flatness of the horizon and space and
results in microwave background radiation too due to
the recombination of nuclei and electrons that released
the radiation and the responding expanding of space
causing the gamma rays and other higher rays to slowly
turn to microwave.

I think Big Splat (ekpyrotic scenerio) is more likely
than a Big Bang (which is a bit way off). What do you
think?

I think it is unscientific to make what are, essentially, guesses as to
likelihood. Do you have any reason other then personal philosophy for
favoring one explanation over the other? On a personal scale, either is
mind boggling.

It has been proposed that there are actual observations possible that
can invalidate the colliding branes theory. For myself, I'll withhold
judgment until such observations are made.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

A universe with billions and billions and billions of galaxies
that once fit inside a space smaller than the head of a pin is
just well, hmm.. a bit far out It takes almost infinite energy
to initiate the Inflation. It's like believing in God, isn't
it. In M-theory with multidimensional branes and all. The
mind bogglingness is more smeared because of more structural
support due to the two colliding branes imparting the energy
and matter of creation.

In 2008. Very sensitive gravity wave detectors will be deployed
in space. If they can detect the gravity wave effect from a Big
Bang. Then BB is the winner. Sometimes I just think BB is a bit
fantastic.

The original message is really meant for alternative cosmology
modelers and physics theoreticists in sci.physics.

Clear skies,

p6

"p6" wrote in message
oups.com...

A universe with billions and billions and billions of galaxies
that once fit inside a space smaller than the head of a pin is
just well, hmm.. a bit far out It takes almost infinite energy
to initiate the Inflation. It's like believing in God, isn't

Actually, total net energy is zero.

"p" == p6 writes:

p A universe with billions and billions and billions of galaxies that
p once fit inside a space smaller than the head of a pin is just
p well, hmm.. a bit far out

This statement fails to distinguish between the observable Universe,
which did indeed once fit inside a space smaller than the head of a
pin, and the entire Universe, which may very well be infinite in extent.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Joseph Lazio wrote:

This statement fails to distinguish between the observable Universe,
which did indeed once fit inside a space smaller than the head of a
pin, and the entire Universe, which may very well be infinite in extent.

How long would it take such a universe to become infinite?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"BC" == Bob Cain writes:

BC Joseph Lazio wrote:

This statement fails to distinguish between the observable
Universe, which did indeed once fit inside a space smaller than the
head of a pin, and the entire Universe, which may very well be
infinite in extent.

BC How long would it take such a universe to become infinite?

The Universe didn't "become" infinite in spatial extent (if in fact it
is).

The problem here is that many people (based in part on poor
descriptions from my learned colleagues) think that the initial
singularity in the Big Bang model was a point in space. It wasn't.
It was a point in time. If you extrapolate backward in time, we reach
a point at which our understanding breaks down, because the
temperature and density of the Universe become infinite.

In contrast, the spatial extent of the Universe could be infinite. If
so, it always has been infinite.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html