{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/25/2013 5:52:10 PM
10
Yet it all breaks down and doesn't abide by thermodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, or relativity.
English
-
Newtonian mechanics are wrong and has been replaced by quantum theory for 100 years now. The first law of thermodynamics (energy is conserved) is seemingly violated regardless when we consider Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which allows for particles to pop into existence for a limited amount of time. Of course, this does not actually violate any law of physics, but the fact that [i]you[/i] cannot understand how something can hold true while the laws of physics simultaneously hold true is irrelevant. I assume you're referring to the fact that nothing can exceed the speed of light as dictated in special relativity. This is true of any particles that travel within the universe, not about the expansion of the universe itself. Relativity and the big bang are consistent. Furthermore, recent investigations in cosmology show that the universe could have arisen from nothing according to the laws of physics, elaborated in Professor Lawrence Krauss' book, [i]A Universe from Nothing[/i].
-
[quote]Newtonian mechanics are wrong and has been replaced by quantum theory for 100 years now. [/quote] ...no it hasn't. Newtonian mechanics are still used ALL the time, quantum theory is used for the quantum level of analysis.
-
Newtonian mechanics are decent approximations of the macroscopic world, but quantum theory is a more accurate description of all scales, large and small. The only exception to this is the incompatibility between general relativity (gravity) and quantum mechanics. Otherwise, we have extremely accurate theories describing electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force. Furthermore, the Schrödinger equation can be applied to macroscopic systems such as solar systems to produce the same—if not more accurate—results than Newtonian mechanics. Put simply, Newtonian mechanics are wrong in general because they fail at the quantum level and only approximate on the larger level. Quantum theory explains the small level and more accurately describes the larger level (with the exception, again, being gravity).
-
...And that makes it false how?
-
Violates the first law of thermodynamics. The density of the universe in such a small point is a violation of chemistry and physics in every sense of the world. Even if the density was that small, it would create a black hole and expansion would be highly improbable. The heat alone wouldn't even allow atoms to be stable.
-
... Except the Big Bang singularity wasn't matter, it was just energy. Matter formed after expansion, and it certainly had enough energy to counteract gravity, otherwise we wouldn't be observing metric space-time expansion and theorizing about dark energy. Plus, not all singularities are intrinsically identical to black holes. And even then, the term "singularity" in the world of physics is so shittily understood by most people, that there's no point in trying to discuss it. We'd need to understand quantum mechanics to even begin diving into that, and you and I [i]both[/i] know we don't have the education to do so.
-
[quote]Except the Big Bang singularity wasn't matter, it was just energy. [/quote] And this is where the problem lies. Wave particle duality can't really explain that, nor does it abide by the conservation of matter. Where's the mathematical proof that energy can become matter?
-
I don't understand how you think it violates wave-particle duality whatsoever (Explain that more), and as for proof that matter can become energy, I'm also lost with your question. Are you at all familiar with the process of nucleosynthesis?
-
I didn't say it violates it, I said it can't be explained with it. [quote]Are you at all familiar with the process of nucleosynthesis?[/quote] No.
-
Well, I'd expect it to be a bit tough to understand. Like everyone's said, the state of the universe pre-Big Bang is still very much being researched, some of your questions may simply lack answers at the moment. I'm an astronomy geek, not a quantum physics geek, so my answers are certainly lacking. I'd ask /r/askscience whatever questions you have, they'll answer them right away. I'll answer the part about nucleosynthesis when I get home in a few hours.
