Talk:Big Bang/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Talk page header

Since similar opinions keep coming up, does anyone think it would help to repeat the sentence "Please note, this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally" in red so people will notice? Art LaPella 05:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest modifying the note to make reference to WP:OR, and say something along the lines of "this is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began - it's to discuss the article, which is about the Big Bang model, and about evidence for it and criticism of it that have been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature". Or maybe "This talk page is for discussing the article, which is about X. This talk page is not the place for Y or Z". --Christopher Thomas 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Doing so would greatly reduce trolling and flaming, and the endless, pointless arguments that ensue, which provide neither quality nor useable content to the article itself. After all, while it is the freedom of any thinking people to debate an idea, it is up to scientists - and more specifically, astrophysicists and cosmologists - to establish the state of the BB model at any given time. Since this article's existence is solely for the purpose of reporting that state and how it was concluded, discussions on origins would best be posted in Talk:Origins and not here. Astrobayes 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed it. I don't think changing "Talkheader" is an option without changing it for anyone, but how do you like it this way? Art LaPella 20:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. --Christopher Thomas 21:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Condense space?

Could some one elaborate on the fact that the Big Bang say that it has one of it's principle: space condensing? Has anyone ever anywhere condensed space? 134.193.168.234 14:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. If space condensing means cosmic inflation, I would think that's the opposite of condensing space. If it means condensing the article space alloted to non-standard cosmology, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and #Opposing views. Art LaPella 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Big Bang theory decried by rate of acceleration mismatch

Hubble telescope proved what it was intended for -- to verify the expansion of galaxies. The ground observation of Edwin Hubble that lead to the theory of expanding universes created the surmise that this motion must be explained by a central explosion of material outward -- thus galaxies seen as moving away from one another. But the space telescope that bears the astronomers name verified the wrong fact, inconveniently for those who have now sworn their allegiance, without sufficient scientific data to the origin of that motion aka the big bang theory, which remains a quaint theory of a bygone innocent age of simplistic physics, a day that no longer approximates anything we have learned about the worlds and energies that make up our existence (unless we include pure mathmatical theory)

The rate of acceleration of those moving galaxies does not match the explosion theory. Quite the opposite. But this is only one observational confrontation with the dearest theory of them all.

Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel Prize for Physics, observed, "The basic assumption of the medieval cosmos - a universe created from nothing, doomed to final destruction, governed by perfect mathematical laws that can be found by reason alone - are now the assumptions of modern cosmology."

Neutral point of view? If you are going to discuss Big Bang, then it should be shown why it isn't so.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

67.101.52.69 08:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Ancient Wisdom

If you want to refute the Big Bang, please see the second information box at the top of this page. If you don't think this article achieves neutrality, please address many earlier debates including #Opposing views. Art LaPella 19:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Para removed - discuss?

The following information was removed from early on, pasted here for discussion:

"As best we currently understand it, at some point in existance, both space and time (as we understand them) came into being, and since then space-time itself has appeared to expand and the universe as we know it evolved, within the "bubble" of existance so formed. It is as viewed from within this bubble, that time and space appear to be expanding - it is not necessarily the case that the bubble itself is. In other words, rather than the universe expanding, it is space itself which is changing, and this creates the effect of a universal expansion. Ref: This description of the nature of the universe is taken from New Scientist, 8 July 2006, which describes how a bubble universe is believed to form and the manner in which space-time appears to be created within it. For this reason, we do not yet have answers to questions such as "what lies beyond space" and "what happened before time began", and indeed questions such as these may have no meaning in the sense we understand them. Physicists and cosmologers attempt to study both the perceived development of the universe and space-time from within this bubble-universe (ie what we ourselves see), and also the laws of nature which could give rise to it in the first place."

The distinction between the universe expanding, and space (or spacetime) itself expanding, and the fact that space and time (as we understand them) may therefore only exist since the BB and may only be expanding within the "bubble" of "reality" so existing, seems like critical points to bring in early. This isn't the usual lay-unerstanding, and its mentioned later in part but not in whole. Cleanup of any errors aside, isn't this good information to mention early on, before discussing the Big Bang itself? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of problems that I see with this paragraph:

1. "Space and time came into being" -- expresses a speculation that space and time are emergent phenomena, but this may be incorrect. Check the speculative physics section and also read about cosmogony. The major point about the big bang is that it parametrizes the expansion of the universe.
2. "bubble of existence so formed" -- somewhat ambiguous as it could refer to inflationary domain or the observable universe.
3. distinction between the bubble expanding and space expanding -- I'm unclear as to what this sentence is trying to convey even. If the metric experiences an expansion than certainly the "bubble" is expanding as well.
4. distinction between space expanding and universe expanding -- This appears to be a novel distinction rather than an actual one.
5. rationale for why we don't have answers to "beyond the big bang" questions -- limited in scope and dealt with better elsewhere in the article.
6. reference to New Scientist -- not the best of sources.

--ScienceApologist 14:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair points all. The issue I'm trying to address (and feel the article needs to make more explicit) is this:

I'm a fairly educated person, and have read a fair bit on such things, as they interest me. But even so, I didn't grasp the idea (or significance) of comments such as "space itself is expanding" or "the glaxies are carried with space as it expands", or similar sentiments. The concept that it was the actual metric of space which was changing, as seen from within space, was one that I missed. Also I didn't get the idea (and I dont know if its current theory or just speculation) that even if space seems to us (due to changing metric) to be expanding, it may not seem that way from "outside", whatever "outside" may be. And the idea that space and time *could* be emergent phenomenae, was missing for me too. So I got stuck in the classic misconception of an explosion and matter racing out into already-infinite space (from where? after what?). Its those misunderstandings or concepts or possibly more accurate views of current theory, that I'd like to bring within this article, to before discussing the Big bang itself (from plank time onwards) so that others have a more correct concept to visualize the big bang within.

Hope that makes a lot more sense now! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I do understand that these points are confusing even to the most-educated lay-reader. I suggest though that it may be better to propose tweaking the current wording rather than writing an entirely new paragraph that contains perhaps redudant and misleading material.

Metric expansion is difficult to explain especially because we would never observe it on local scales. There are a number of "big bang analogies" that have been popular at various times with the general public including the "raisin bread" and the "ant on a balloon" analogies. Maybe we could start articles about these? --ScienceApologist 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are very confusing facts about the geometry of vacuum decay and inflation (such as how when a false vacuum decays, the bubble that is nucleated just looks like a bubble expanding at the speed of light, insofar as it looks like anything at all, but inside the bubble it looks like its own closed universe). All these things seem to get mixed up in the popular press. The geometry of the situation is quite complicated (see, e.g. the papers of Guth and Farhi.) –Joke 16:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We actually do explain much of it quite well, later on. I'd just bring that (existing) paragraph forward, for starters. Would you be okay with that?

What I dont feel is best is effectively saying "Its hard to explain so let's not try harder". I'd like to look for ways to do that better if we can, rather than ways to say how futile explaining it is, or multiple articles for each analogy ever used. Can we bring that paragraph forward, and try to see what might help explain it better afterwards? Or even a small subarticle, "Expansion opf space in the Big Bang theory"? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A subarticle would be a great idea! The problem with changing the intro is that people who are concerned with brevity and precision (i.e. me) find many of the more intuitive explanations cumbersome and unencyclopedic. But if we can have them in a simple, pedagogical article, that ought to satisfy everyone. –Joke 16:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest the artice be titled "metric expansion", "expansion of space". or "space expansion"? I note that one of these titles is currently a redirect to "Hubble's Law" which is a slight equivocation. --ScienceApologist 17:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd stick with Expansion of space in the Big Bang theory, failing which, Metric expansion of space. "Space expansion" could mean anything from an extension on ones house onwards, and "metric expansion" doesnt make clear its subject matter in the title. I think as its an unfamiliar concept to most people, we should try to make it easier and more obvious, if we can, which those two titles might achieve better. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm more partial to Metric expansion of space myself because it is not just a feature of the "Big Bang" but of a great many general relativity solutions. We can certainly redirect "Expansion of space in the Big Bang theory" there if you'd like, but I think that the article on metric expansion of space is broad enough to provide for more interesting discussion.

In particular, I'd like to see in such an article a discussion of the two most popular analogies (raisin bread and expanding balloon), discussion of the scale factor and comoving coordinates, bits about the way in which expansion does and doesn't connect to the speed of light, the observable universe, etc. and explanations for why physically confined rulers don't expand along with the rest of space time. We should also make reference to Hubble's Law observations of the expansion of space as well as the mathematics of a scalar expansion of a metric. --ScienceApologist 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I banged out a quick article. Please edit it and add references, images, and helpful explanations. Some of my wording may be awkward since I did this very late and didn't carefully edit. --ScienceApologist 09:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's good, its pretty thorough, and covers it well enough - thanks! I'm going to suggest discussing it on its own talk page. My main issue is the intro, which is too technical for newcomers. I think a less technical-termed intro can be done that will introduce the subject, and a little of the technical detail can go into the 1st section. If we lose the very people we're trying to explain it to, on line #1, thats not ideal :) We may have to simplify the intro more up front, or add an "overview" or "layperson's description" first. But thats just my 1st reaction. Nice article! Will certainly help this one! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing at all

One consequence of the Big Bang is that the conditions of today's universe are different from the conditions in the past or in the future (natural evolution of universe constantly takes place

We live in a universe where nothing is the same today as it was yesterday - how the Big Bang is to be given the credit for this, escapes me totally. Perhaps the person who framed this sentence, would be kind enough to explain what is meant? Paul venter 10:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Some universe models you can imagine don't have an evolving universe. Others do. We aren't talking about arrows of time, but rather the fact that the density, temperature, etc. of the universe have been changing. --ScienceApologist 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Timeline Icon?

When you click on the timeline of the big bang text, you see a fairly informative timeline regarding the evolution of the universe. But displayed on the Big Bang page is a thumbnail that makes considerably less sense - sort of a box with differently colored geometric shapes in it. It isn't labeled as anything, and I feel I have at least a basic understanding of big bang cosmology and I have no idea what it is supposed to be. Could this picture be changed, removed, or supported with a little more explanation? (excuse me if I missed an explanation in the text somewhere)--AaronM 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Article is not enough self-contained

The Wikipedia:The perfect article page says that "a perfect Wikipedia article ... is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles." __ I can see that the BigBang theory is indeed a complex one, but this too, here, is an encyclopedia article and not a specialised one. In my openion, it certainly needs to become a lot more self-contained by means of simplification and abstracting the information, and providing clues as to the many technical terminology in it, such as providing a short and comprehensible meanings of them between brackets, for example. The importance of doing this lies in that only then the article may be readable for a non-specialised reader; currently it is quite very difficult and dense, as if it is an article of a specialised journal or magazine, not that of an encyclopedia (it is probably for that very reason that Wikipedia's "The perfect article" page acknowledges that principle stated above). Yet, the very valuable contributions of editors in this article will not be compromised or erased for that purpose; I think they should then be moved into a more specialised pages, sub-pages, etc. which are from the beginning concerned with technical and specialised information and are therefore justified in presenting these information in a technical and specialised manner and language (a good example, from within the Big Bang article, is the sub-page Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory). The Big Bang theory itself could have two distinct articles, one more abstract and simple, for the non-specialised reader (more self-contained), another, perhaps under a different title, more specialised and technical, and you know what to do with it!

Thank you, :-) __Maysara 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Metric expansion of space is a start. --ScienceApologist 14:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Opponents?

There should be a section within this article present about the opponents to the Big Bang theory if one of proponents is.

Here we go again. Opposition is at Big Bang#Features, issues and problems and its 7 subheadings. Art LaPella 19:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Need a citation

In the main/history section there needs to be a source cited for this selection, " Because the net energy of the Universe is zero (as the positive energy of matter in the Universe mc² is equilibrated by the same amount of negative energy of mutual gravitation of this matter), currently no "primeval atom" is considered to be necessary to start the Big Bang," because quite simply it sounds like pseudoscientific jargon and - I'm speaking as a physicist here myself - it means nothing as it is currently written. If the author wishes to cite the source where this information was obtained that would help. It deserves to be removed otherwise as it does not add substance to the article. Astrobayes 10:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a poor phrasing of the idea that it's a lot easier to make spontaneous creation of the universe consistent with known physical laws if it has exactly the mass needed for closure. This has been expressed in popular literature (Scientific American) as meaning that the gravitational potential energy (negative) exactly balances the mass energy (positive), giving a net energy of zero. --Christopher Thomas 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have a hard time understanding this. This is an idea common in popular works. This has always puzzled me, as there is no definition of gravitational potential energy which is independent of coordinatisation (much less generally covariant). See the extensive discussion at Talk:Cosmic inflation. –Joke 15:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, a short statement mentioning the idea and why it breaks down might be a good thing to put in the article. --Christopher Thomas 18:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea is only common in (relatively) obscure popular science articles and books. Your average, everyday reader will have never come across this "misconception". In any case, I think the best place to address the issue would be on the conservation of energy page where the question "Does the Big Bang violate the conservation of energy?" might be more easily answered in context. Once we address it over there, linking from here can be done rather painlessly. What do others think? --ScienceApologist 18:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Bang vs Local Expansion-Remote Contraction

A few questions on the Big Bang: From where did the material come to produce the big bang? For how many eons did it exist in a pre-big bang state? What triggered the big bang? Was the big bang from a mathematical point in space or another dimension? Was the big bang actually a change in a limited volume of pre-space and if so, what was the size of that volume? Is it possible that the so-called expansion of the universe is just a local effect in a closed, fixed size universe where another section is shrinking in response to the local expansion, and, if so, then doesn't that indicate that the Big Bang may have never happened? Is it possible to resolve this dichotomy?Bvcrist 06:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't know. Or as the article puts it, "the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony)." Art LaPella 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Conservation of angular momentum problem added

I added this

One of the problems of the Big Bang thoery is that spinning matter and energy expand into the current universe in a frictionless enviroment all spinning matter such as galaxies and culsters of galaxies must be spinning in the same direction or the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum to keep. We have seen many galaxies spinning in opisite directions this is a strange phenomenon which the big bang thoery does not explain.

Do i have any error?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_angular_momentum

Oops, I already reverted you before I saw you on the talk page. Conservation of angular momentum requires the universe's total angular momentum to be unchanging, but why should that make all galaxies spin the same way? And even if it did, how could they continue to spin the same way after a galaxy collision? I can't imagine what you describe, so do you have a reference for it, or does Wikipedia:No original research apply? Art LaPella 22:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

scine this thoery has to do with all matter coming from a single dot as it expanded the angular momentum would stay with the matter as it was expanding that would require all gaxaies spinning the the same direction there are many gaxalies spinning in all ways not in one direction as the big bang would implie e.g. all matter coming from 1 dot alright lets says that at the start the big bang is 1 massive top spinning in one direction as it is expanding making more tops(galaxies) those tops should also be spinning in the same direction as the origninal top due to conservation of angular momentum in a frictionless enviroment get me?

We don't know if the Big Bang came from a dot or just from a small area, nor do we know it was spinning like a top. But even if for some reason everything did spin like a top, as it separated into more tops the collisions would make them spin in all directions.

Anyway, it doesn't matter much if you convince me - I'm not even a professional scientist. Please read the second information box at the top of the page: "This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began. This page is for discussing the article, which is about the Big Bang model, and about what has been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines." Art LaPella 03:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

how is this original research? i am just saying that the thoery doesn't make sence with conservation of angular momentum. but ur right that we dont know if it was spinning

The original research policy states: "This policy in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position." You haven't provided any previously published argument that the Big Bang theory doesn't make sense with conservation of angular momentum, so it's original research as defined by Wikipedia. I could try to re-explain conservation of angular momentum as I understand it, but the main point is that no reader of Wikipedia wants to read what you and I think: they want to read what the scientific consensus is. Art LaPella 04:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Spin" of a galaxy is, in effect, a matter of human (or planet earth's) perspective and, in one sense, special relativity.

The apparent spin (rotation) of a galaxy depends on whether you (or planet earth) are (is) on this side of the major plane of a galaxy looking at it or you are on its opposite side.

This means that a right hand rotation, if you call it a right hand spin, will appear to be a left hand spin if you (and planet earth) could suddenly jump to the other side of that particular galaxy. To help you see my meaning, draw a right-hand spiral on a piece of paper. Put it above your head. Look at the side that has the ink on it and you see a right-hand spiral. Now lower that sheet of paper to the floor, without flipping the sides. You must now be looking at the back side of the page that has no ink on it. The spiral, which is on the other side, will now appear as a "left hand spiral". This means we can not, in any simple visual manner, distinguish whether a galaxy has a right or left hand spin (rotation).

My Speculation: If all galaxies are forced by sub-atomic properties, such as left-handed neutrinos or possibly left-handed electrons, to rotate in the same direction on a macroscopic galaxy scale, then we can relate the spin of the galaxies to the spin of the neutrino, which, based on a limited set experimental determinations, occurs with only left-handed helicities or left-handed spins, if we accept helicity as being identical with spin.

Bvcrist 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Barry White refers to "galaxies spinning in all ways", not "both ways", so I presume he means the direction of the axis, not just clockwise/counterclockwise (which as every plumber knows, depends on which way you are looking). Anyway, I presume you support the No Original Research policy. Art LaPella 05:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what Barry meant by "all ways", especially when I look at galaxy photos. Just trying to help reveal a view that is sometimes missed or forgotten

As for "NOR", Yes on No Original Research, and I've become a thorn to those who think QED has replaced Grand Old Dynamics (GOD) and those who try to push theories off on the unsuspecting beginners as the way nature must be.

Bvcrist 08:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

hun? anyways yeah i meant that they are spinning in all ways

Shall I address you as Barry White ? It would be great if you would type your name just after your input so everyone would know which user we should address. Thanks!

To address the topic at hand "spinning in all ways". Correct me if I'm wrong, but your choice of words suggests that the main axis of each galaxy has no special orientation and so they appear to be spinning in all ways. Is that how I should understand your writing? If so, I agree 100%. My writing about spin talks about the curling tails that we can see.

My words about right-handed spin and left-handed spin mean that the curved spiralling tails are curved with a clock-wise rotation (right-hand spin) or a counter clock-wise rotation (left-hand spin). Hope that explains. bvcrist Bvcrist 03:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The conservation of angular momentum "problem" is one of the more laughable arguments that creationist have come up with at their Sunday-pulpits. Basically they have misinterpreted the law and the Big Bang to make them believe that every object in the universe should spin in the same direction since whatever total angular momentum the universe (or the galaxy or the solar system -- they often confuse the concepts) started out with, it must currently now have and so everything should rotate/revolve the same way. Only this is ignorant of basic physics and mathematics of conservation. In the case of a vector conservation law, the sum of all vectors must equal the vector that was starting. So lets say you have a top that is spinning right-handed. If this top splits into two tops without any external torques and one of the tops is spinning left-handed, the conservation of angular momentum states that the second top must be spinning fast enough right-handedly so that the total angular momentum is conserved. Applying this to the universe, it is clear that there is no prediction that can be made which would determine that all galaxies, planetary orbits, planets, stars, etc. should have a prefered axis. Quite the opposite, in fact. If we saw all the objects in the universe oriented toward a preferred direction, that would be a signal that there was a torque preference for one form of angular momentum which would be an indication that our current theories about the randomization that occurs during cosmic inflation would be incorrect. --ScienceApologist 14:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello ScienceApologiest!

QUOTE from Wiki

Angular momentum in quantum mechanics

In quantum mechanics, angular momentum is quantized -- that is, it cannot vary continuously, but only in "quantum leaps" between certain allowed values. The angular momentum of a subatomic particle, due to its motion through space, is always a whole-number multiple of ("h-bar"), defined as Planck's constant divided by 2π. Furthermore, experiments show that most subatomic particles have a permanent, built-in angular momentum, which is not due to their motion through space. This spin angular momentum comes in units of hbar. For example, an electron standing at rest has an angular momentum of ...

END QUOTE

It seems you might not be so familiar with the concept of spin at the atomic particle level. The spin of an electron and the neutrino appear to be quantized, and the "spin" property is not defined or known to be on-axis, like a planet. In general, planetary and atomic physics are similar, but there is not a one-to-one correspondence. If memory serves me well, there are no particle or atomic physic phenomena that produce opposing angular momenta such as might happen when one ball strikes two other balls simultaneously. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you check on Spin-Polarized electrons, how they are made and how they produce optically polarized light, and also check on Optically-Polarized laser light (photons) and how they generate spin-polarized electrons, you'll find that there is a one-to-one correspondence or propagation of one spin state or optical polarity (LHC or RHC) even when spin-polarized electron generate optically polarized photons and vice versa. So this means the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum either needs to be clarified or there's a big bunch of quantum physicists doing something against the Law of Conservation and ought to be arrested.

If your indirect opening comments are meant to suggest my thinking leans to that of creationists, then I would like to know from what sentence of mine you have surmised such an idea. As a scientist familiar with many aspects of physics and chemistry and the mysteries they entain, I admit my amazement to the wonders of our universe, but I've not joined either of the two camps, bible-thumpers or science-thumpers. My mind is still open and full of questions.

If you re-read my suggestions, then you should read that I'm suggesting that particle level physics may have permuted or percolated its way up from atomic level to molecular level and on up to planetary level, in a kind of butterfly on the wind in the Amazon causing a tornadoe in your area.

Does that clarify things a bit?

Bvcrist 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I can guarantee that User:ScienceApologist, like most of the people who edit this article, is aware of quantization of angular momentum.

Second of all, you appear to be unfamiliar with the fact that, contrary to your suggestions of a "butterfly effect" style of quantization effects at larger scales, motion of objects such as orbiting planets and rotating galaxies (or orbiting and rotating pebbles, for that matter) approaches classical behavior as the scales increase. Demonstrating this is a straightforward and well-known toy problem in quantum mechanics. This makes classical behavior an extremely good approximation for the large-scale motion and structure of the universe.

Third, you appear to be making an incorrect assumption regarding frictionless motion. Any system composed of a large number of interacting objects, such as a galaxy's vast number of stars, exhibits effects analogous to friction and heating as its component parts interact with each other. Thus, the suggestion that different parts of the early universe couldn't exchange angular momentum with each other is at odds with physics as it is presently known.

Fourth, you appear to have not understood User:ScienceApologist's original response to your inserted paragraph. The universe's total angular momentum is (probably) conserved, but local parts can have any angular momentum they please, derived from interactions with other parts. Any assertation that angular momentum of the universe forces all galaxies to have spin axes that are aligned completely overlooks the fact that this type of interaction occurs.

The only time that quantum effects would have significant impact on the large scale structure of the observable universe would have been when the observable universe was compressed within a volume small enough for quantum interactions to dominate. Some of these effects _have_ been observed, in the form of perturbations to the cosmic microwave background, and are in line with predictions based on the big bang model. --Christopher Thomas 19:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

i just wanna say to science guy that were did the extra engry came from to(in ur example) spin 1 half of the top that split left handed then the second half right handed spin fast enoghf to conserve the overall angeluar momentum is what i understood from ur saying "law of thermodynamics" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry White (talk • contribs)

1. "science guy" has to mean User:ScienceApologist. 2. Extra energy could come from wherever, for instance from kinetic energy of stars randomly boinging around in each galaxy and interacting with clusters 3. ScienceApologist never said "law of thermodynamics" on this page 4. it's still original research. Art LaPella 06:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Christopher.

Thank you for your effort to explain the thoughts of ScienceApologist.

Guess I'm confused again. I did not intend to "assert" anything. My "Speculation" (see earlier response by me) was that there is a chance that the left-handed spin of the neutrino (which so far seems to violate parity and appear with its LHC) and possibly the electron might be, in effect, the cause of the spirals of galaxies. I did not address the mechanism of how this happens, so I did not mention friction or field effects of any sort. Please refrain from attributing false statements to my writing.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, ie Quantum effects converge into classical effects as the scale increases. That's a given just we still lack a smooth way of moving from quantum to classical effects, but there are people working on that and we hope they report some progress soon.

There is no doubt that current day planetary physics describes the motions of planets and galaxies as well as possible. That is not to say that there is no need for some corrections (hopefully small) to classical physics, such as Newton's "law" of planetary gravitation and Coulomb's "law" of force.

With respect to your statement: "The only time that quantum effects would have significant impact on the large scale structure of the observable universe would have been when the observable universe was compressed within a volume small enough for quantum interactions to dominate". Since the physical or experimental evidence supporting the Big Bang is still sketchy, this is also speculation, is it not? The phenomena that have been used to support the Big Bang Theory are the CMB and the red shift of light. EXCERPT from CMB article: "The cosmic microwave background radiation and the cosmological red shift are together regarded as the best available evidence for the Big Bang (BB) theory." Based on my knowledge, neither of these two phenomena were predicted. They were discovered. Is that right? They are not the result of a prediction from Big Bang Theorists, right?

I did not, to my knowledge, suggest that angular momentum is not conserved. I'm saying that, based on current findings about neutrino's left handed chirality (LHC), that this LHC may have, by some as yet undefined mechanism, been transferred or replicated into (onto) many other subatomic particles which in turn, over great lengths (eons) of time, may have produced the spirals via subtle quantum-classical interactions. I'm saying the bias was there at the start (ie LHC) and that conservation of angular momentum means that the bias was conserved. Others, myself include, would like to think that the universe has a Yin-Yang balance of +/- effects, but our wishful thinking does not make it true.

Because the cause of the CMB is not so certain, it is possible that a universe with 90% of its matter being molecular Hydrogen (H2) might naturally produce a CMB from Hydrogen with no need to invoke a Big Bang. If you can accept, for a moment, that the source of CMB might not be due to the Big Bang, then the only phenomenon that might support the Big Bang is the red shift. I might be wrong, but aren't there alternate explanations for the red shift? For me the Big Bang is an interesting Postulate, but it does not yet deserve the suffix, Theory because there are other ways to explain the existence of our universe.

Bringing things back into perspective, I'm suggesting that the Big Bang either (A) did not occur as is currently speculated or (B) did occur but in a much different sense. I write this because I am a proponent of what you might call the Perpetual Chaotic Universe postulate, wherein the apparent "expansion" evidence is probably due to local effects that are occuring only in our section of the universe and that all of the sections of a fixed universe are simultaneously expanding and contracting against each other in a chaotic fashion on a perpetual basis.

Bvcrist 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

By User:Bvcrist's admission, this idea is purely original research and so does not belong in Wikipedia. Discussion complete. --ScienceApologist 18:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that statement is clearly out of left field! Never saw that coming at this stage of the discussion.

At the very onset of my contribution to this discussion, I wrote "My Speculation", which seems like a clear statement. I never suggested to anyone, you included, or even considered to add such an idea to this article or any other Wiki article, therefore your last comment is a moot point. I have, if you re-read more carefully, simply offered a possible explanation for the cause of the spiral. If you would indeed like to put your head in the sand and ignore a potential explanation then that is your choice. No one will try to stop you from doing so.

It is interesting that you have twisted my speculation into a form of original research. Research, of any type, clearly takes time and clearly requires careful thought and there is no mention on my part that I have researched such an idea. Yes, a very interesting way to twist words.

I do find it interesting, also, that you ignored my inference that the existence of CMB does not constitute evidence that the Big Bang ever occured. Was your way out of the discussion to tempting to resist, or have I hit a sore spot?

Wiki's policy of No Original Research is a valid one, to which I strongly adhere. It's too bad and very sad that so many graduate students in physics are so readily injecting recent teachings into Wiki which are still unproven by experiment.

Bvcrist 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying what i mean to say but by the comment i made by the laws of thermodynamics is that energy or matter cannot be made or destoryed and was questioning where did that extra engry came from to keep the total in the closed system conserved and about the stars and clusters that energy/mass was already there to being with. Sorry for my last posts grammar.

Who do this belong to?

I barry white said that how do you put ur name at the end?

Like this: ~~~~ . You'll find the ~ key at the upper left corner of your keyboard to the left of the 1. Hold "Shift" down, and press the ~ key 4 times. Art LaPella 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok.Barry White 02:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)