Go back
Latest ideas about the Big Bang Theory

Latest ideas about the Big Bang Theory

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it didn't took anything. time didn't existed before big bang
I think that would be our local version of time did not exist for us before the big bang. There are a lot of alternate universe theories that say our universe is just one drop in a huge ocean of universes and they all have time flowing in them and the 'oververse' that contains all these island universes such as ours may be one. To say time did not exist before the big bang may be a bit provincial, like people on an island isolated for a thousand years and they don't have the capability of going to other islands which are a thousand miles away and they assume their island IS the earth and they live in the middle of an infinite sea.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
But the original question was why don't atoms get destroyed by supernovae and such. The answer to that is it takes not billions of degrees which is what you get in novae but the condition that created the universe going in reverse which is a state that goes beyond mere temerature to the ultimate compression of space and time, you go in reverse and thats wha ...[text shortened]... to self assemble into atoms again so they cannot be said to have been destroyed I would think.
No, you just need an anti-atom. I think what Arrakis means is why do you get heavy nucleii at all, why don't you just get iron as it has the lowest binding energy per nucleon - or just really light atoms. He's asking why the nucleii don't get smashed apart. During the supernova this is happening, but nucleii are being fused at the same rate, while the supernova is hot enough you get a balance between heavy nucleii being formed and destroyed again, so that once it's built up there is a population of heavy elements; as the supernova expands and cools down some of the more stable heavy nucleii are left over.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by stocken
An atom can't burn. Can it? As I understand it, fire is really just a process where certain elements of a material are released due to great heat. No?

So, if you take wood, expose it to heat, and combined with oxygen the wood will at a temperature of about... what?.. 200 Celsius, release certain particles. We see this as smoke. The flames are heated air.* ...[text shortened]... t. The heat that rise from the burning spot thus emit light, hence the flames.

Fascinating.
fire is really just a process where certain elements of a material are released due to great heat. No?
Fire is OXIDATION (Rust) it is the same process as something going rusty like a peice of iron or a peice of fruit rotting but with fire the process is much much faster

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.