'Big Bang' actually 'Big Chill,' new theory says - Dallas Cowboys Forum

**jobberone** · 08-22-2012

How did the universe begin? The Big Bang is traditionally envisioned as the moment when an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward, expanding in three spatial directions and gradually cooling down as it did so. Now, a team of physicists says the Big Bang should be modeled as a phase change: the moment when an amorphous, formless universe analogous to liquid water cooled and suddenly crystallized to form four-dimensional space-time, analogous to ice.
In the new study, lead author James Quach and colleagues at the University of Melbourne in Australia say the hypothesis can be tested by looking for defects that would have formed in the structure of space-time when the universe

crystallized. The universe is currently about 13.7 billion years old.
"Think of the early universe as being like a liquid," Quach said in a statement. "Then as the universe cools, it 'crystallises' into the three spatial and one time dimension that we see today. Theorized this way, as the universe cools, we would expect that cracks should form, similar to the way cracks are formed when water freezes into ice

."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...#ixzz24IjWQply

WV Cowboy · 08-22-2012

Trying to believe that "an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward" ... and formed the universe, the sun and moon, the earth and life itself as we know it, ... is like trying to believe if you threw 1,000 scrabble board games into the air they would land and form the Webster's dictionary.

masomenos · 08-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by WV Cowboy

Trying to believe that "an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward" ... and formed the universe, the sun and moon, the earth and life itself as we know it, ... is like trying to believe if you threw 1,000 scrabble board games into the air they would land and form the Webster's dictionary.

I think you left out a few steps in between the sudden burst and life itself.

speedkilz88 · 08-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by masomenos

I think you left out a few steps in between the sudden burst and life itself.

So does science, but then it's all about theories and hypothesis.

zrinkill · 08-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedkilz88

So does science, but then it's all about theories and hypothesis.

True story

Doomsday101 · 08-22-2012

Warning guys do not get into religion

masomenos · 08-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedkilz88

So does science, but then it's all about theories and hypothesis.

Whoa, you just blew my mind.

**ScipioCowboy** · 08-22-2012

One of the most fascinating aspects of metaphorical descriptions such as the Big Bang or the Big Chill is when the metaphor becomes inseparable from the theory.

We often use metaphor as an aid to understanding. We draw comparisons between a process that is commonly understood (the metaphor) and a process that isn't so commonly understood (what we're seeking to understand). However, in the end, the goal is to understand the latter process without the aid of the former process (the metaphor).

However, in the realm of cosmology and particle physics, we're dealing with processes that nobody on this planet understands completely. Consequently, the metaphor are always getting conflated with the process we're seeking to understand.

In the realm of cosmology and particle physics especially, there haven't been any substantial paradigmatic breakthroughs in a very long time. (And before anyone mentions it, I would point out that Higgs-Boson wasn't paradigm shattering. It was a long-awaited confirmation of what we already suspected was true.)

It's highly possibly that we haven't had any breakthroughs because we've reached the limits of that which our mind can append linear cause-and-effect relationships to. That's why we keep recycling metaphors. It's the same reason you can't have a conversation with your dog about quantum mechanics.

Everyone it privy to the same observational data. They're just structuring it differently.

SaltwaterServr · 08-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedkilz88

So does science, but then it's all about theories and hypothesis.

Gravity is a theory so feel free to jump out of any airplane at any time to test it.

Hoofbite · 08-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScipioCowboy

One of the most fascinating aspects of metaphorical descriptions such as the Big Bang or the Big Chill is when the metaphor becomes inseparable from the theory.

We often use metaphor as an aid to understanding. We draw comparisons between a process that is commonly understood (the metaphor) and a process that isn't so commonly understood (what we're seeking to understand). However, in the end, the goal is to understand the latter process without the aid of the former process (the metaphor).

However, in the realm of cosmology and particle physics, we're dealing with processes that nobody on this planet understands completely. Consequently, the metaphor are always getting conflated with the process we're seeking to understand.

[View Full Quote]

I hear ya. When Roofus starts in on quantum mechanics, my brain just shuts off.

cowboyeric8 · 08-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaltwaterServr

Gravity is a theory so feel free to jump out of any airplane at any time to test it.

Gravity doesn't exist, the earth sucks

SaltwaterServr · 08-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScipioCowboy

One of the most fascinating aspects of metaphorical descriptions such as the Big Bang or the Big Chill is when the metaphor becomes inseparable from the theory.

We often use metaphor as an aid to understanding. We draw comparisons between a process that is commonly understood (the metaphor) and a process that isn't so commonly understood (what we're seeking to understand). However, in the end, the goal is to understand the latter process without the aid of the former process (the metaphor).

However, in the realm of cosmology and particle physics, we're dealing with processes that nobody on this planet understands completely. Consequently, the metaphor are always getting conflated with the process we're seeking to understand.

[View Full Quote]

Speaking of quant, there was a great program the other day on Science demonstrating a particle acting as both a particle and wave at the same time. Pretty fascinating, despite me trying to comprehend it through West Nile.

EDIT: I wonder more if it isn't we can't comprehend so far as we can't muster the energies nor accept the costs of further testing to provide inspiration to new theories. I can only imagine the heights of discovery we'll explore once we start figuring out how to test that dark stuff 'em old scientific edumacated keeps yacking about.

**ScipioCowboy** · 08-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaltwaterServr

Gravity is a theory so feel free to jump out of any airplane at any time to test it.

Interestingly enough, the only people who deny the existence of gravity are scientists themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/sc...pagewanted=all

jimnabby · 08-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by WV Cowboy

Trying to believe that "an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward" ... and formed the universe, the sun and moon, the earth and life itself as we know it, ... is like trying to believe if you threw 1,000 scrabble board games into the air they would land and form the Webster's dictionary.

And thank you for playing "Really Bad Analogies!" Tell him what he's won, Joe!

**ScipioCowboy** · 08-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaltwaterServr

Speaking of quant, there was a great program the other day on Science demonstrating a particle acting as both a particle and wave at the same time. Pretty fascinating, despite me trying to comprehend it through West Nile.

That's not just a clash of metaphor. That's a breakdown of reality as we understand it.