Date: Wed Mar 11 10:18:36 2009
Back to Contents
Author: Anthony Lapinski
Subject: Re: Big Bang density
I agree. I often cross post to both tap-l and phys-l.
You can't really do demos for this.
>Forgive me, but I think this thread is not directly applicable to either
>doing Demos or doing Labs.
>I think this thread is another candidate for PIRA Chat
>Just my opinion,
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
>Behalf Of Machele Kindle
>Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:09 AM
>Subject: Re: [tap-l] Big Bang density
>The "stuff" in the Big Bang wasn't the particles that we deal with. It
>wasn't even quarks, much less electrons and such.
>For in the end, we will conserve only what we love.
>We will love only what we understand.
>We will understand only what we are taught. - Baba Dioum
>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
>> 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 10:18:36 2009