Date: Wed Mar 11 10:13:29 2009
Back to Contents
Author: Paul Nord
Subject: Re: Big Bang density
I've heard various "hand waving" explanations for the starting size of
the universe. Some have said it was the size of a pinhead. Others
have said it was the size of a grapefruit. Still others a
basketball. Perhaps it doesn't really matter.
Your assertion that matter is made up of fundamental particles is
based on the current state of the universe with the temperature and
density that we are all familiar with. The big bang theory suggests
that those properties, and perhaps even the laws of physics
themselves, break down at extremely high pressures and densities.
What would cause that object to start expanding at greater than light
speed is not known. Nor can anyone say for certain why it existed in
the first place. And who can say the term "existence" has any meaning
without the 4-dimensional reference frame of space and time?
Yes, it's mind boggling.
There should be a few more demos for this. Put it in DCS somewhere
with the solar-mass weight set and the 1 AU measuring tapes.
On Mar 11, 2009, at 7:06 AM, Anthony Lapinski wrote:
> The cover story on the current (April, 2009) issue of Astronomy is,
> The Universe Had No Beginning. Astronomers claim that at this time,
> universe had infinite density (zero volume). This has puzzled me for
> time. Isn't there a "maximum" density for matter? I mean, stuff is
> composed of fundamental particles which supposedly have mass and
> take up
> space. Or maybe their wave-like properties change this? Maybe the
> laws as we know them today were somehow much different during this
> Still, I find it difficult (mind boggling!) to understand that all the
> matter in the entire universe was compressed into a single point.
> Does anyone know how this infinite density idea can be explained? Is
> being challenged by anyone in the scientific community? Or is this
> something we all have to accept?
From firstname.lastname@example.org Wed Mar 11 10:13:29 2009