Date: Wed Mar 11 14:43:42 2009 Back to Contents ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author: Jerry DiMarco

Subject: Re: Big Bang density

Post:

I think this subject is appropriate for Tap-L because, as has been
noted before, some of us are teachers, and because discussing this may lead
to the development of demos. There are also video demos on this topic
which most of us handle as well.
As for the original question, I'm sure there is disagreement about
"how the universe began". It's probably the case that the other theories
aren't getting any attention right now. To me, when a theory or
explanation doesn't even come close to making sense, or doesn't have an
analogue, at some level, somewhere else in the universe, it is suspect and
should be questioned. Black holes seem to come the closest to this sort of
idea, and a theory that resembles or incorporates them would be more
believable to me. I would like to hear alternate theories about "the
formation" of the universe...

Jerry


At 3/11/2009 10:12 AM, you wrote:
>I agree. I often cross post to both tap-l and phys-l.
>
>You can't really do demos for this.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu [mailto:tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu] On
> >Behalf Of Machele Kindle
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:09 AM
> >To: tap-l@lists.ncsu.edu
> >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.
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
> >
> >Chele
> >
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >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, Why
> > The Universe Had No Beginning. Astronomers claim that at this time, the
> > universe had infinite density (zero volume). This has puzzled me for some
> > 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
> >physical laws as we know them today were somehow much different
> during >this time? 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 it being >challenged by anyone in the scientific community?
> Or is this something we all >have to accept?
> >


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Jerry DiMarco
Manager of Lecture Demonstrations and Instructional Labs
Montana State Univ., Physics Dept.
Bozeman, MT

Our Motto: "Find your inner demo."


From tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu Wed Mar 11 14:43:42 2009

Back