Big Bang or Big Splat?

More like a Big Hoax or a Big Media Fizz .....

undoubtedly forms of matter we dont even know about were associated with

the socalled act of creation - until those are specified everything else
is pure
speculation (something the media is good at).



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?

p6

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:20:53 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:

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??
[snip]

The Big Bang is testable and passes empirical falsification.

The colliding branes theory is a valid scientific theory for the same
reasons. Both theories predict a universe very similar to what we now
observe, but there are subtle differences.

_________________________________________________

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

p6:
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??
...
I think Big Splat (ekpyrotic scenerio) is more likely
than a Big Bang (which is a bit way off). What do you
think?

Chris L Peterson:
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.

Yes, of course. But I have heard eminent cosmologists speak on this
subjects, and their talks are full of "we can only guess," "our best
guess is," "your guess is as good as mine," "it is my guess," and the
like. I would guess that making guesses based on incomplete data is
human nature.

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.

Me. too. I am as keen as anyone to know the answers to the Big
Questions. It is unlikely that I will discover those answers for
myself, however, so I wait patiently for researchers to make new
discoveries, which I will digest as best I can. Meanwhile, I will
continue to fantasize about possible answers to the Big Questions, just
as the OP did, and I will be grateful that this is sci.astro.amateur
rather than sci.astro.rigorously.correct, a newsgroup that might not
welcome the OP, and that would certainly not me. Perhaps there ought to
be a sci.astro.limping.along.and.doing.what.we.can for people like me
who fail to meet the rigorous standards that some would impose on this
group.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

"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.

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?

p6

Yes.
Unfortunately that's the best answer science has...for the moment.

Shawn

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

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??



Problem with the ekpyrotic scenario is it leaves more questions than it
answers.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:02:20 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Yes, of course. But I have heard eminent cosmologists speak on this
subjects, and their talks are full of "we can only guess," "our best
guess is," "your guess is as good as mine," "it is my guess," and the
like. I would guess that making guesses based on incomplete data is
human nature.

Certainly, and there is much in cosmology of a speculative nature. I
have no argument with discussing such theories here (and the colliding
brane one is quite interesting). My objection was only that no purpose
is served in soliciting people's philosophical viewpoint on these
different theories. One of your eminent cosmologists may (and should)
point out where in a theory the guesswork lies; I would hope he wouldn't
ask for an audience vote, however!

_________________________________________________

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

"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?? "

There are BB theories that do not start out as 'singularities', one of
which was developed by Hawlking.

In any event, the physics we understand today is simply not capable of
describing much about the universe before around 10**-35 seconds and is
completely incapable of describing the universe before 10**-43 seconds.
A lot of strange physics occurs between t=0 and t=10**-35 seconds.

As I understand it, the ekpyrotic scenario evolves into the BB senario
around plank time (10**-43 seconds) but is based upon physics for which
not test has yet been devised to acertain whether these string theories
are a part of physics or part of philosophy.

In addition, the colliding branes only release the energy that is
embodied in our universe, it took until about t=300 seconds for the
first atomic particles to condense out of the fireball. That is; matter
is simply condensed energy, and the BB (by whatever means) was pure
energy until the universed cooled to the point where mater could exist.


The only really strange part is how were the diemnsions of space and
time were released in the BB.

I suspect that when these theories are more developed and more
measurements are performed, that they will either converge or become
different mathematical tools to describe the same set of events.
Thereby, I refrain from picking a winner, but get to watch it all play
out (hopefully).

"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

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??

Neither there was an original energy bulidup at
the Big Bang.

When Einstein was asked about God he answered simply:
There must be something behind all that energy.


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