in the sea of strings our concept of matter & the big bang is wrong -- why?
80584
This question is completely confused. I have attached a web site about the big bang you might find useful.
72086
Very intersting question which I or no-one else can answer with 100% certainty. I'm no expert in physics but i figure that to create the source of the 'big bang' would  require an infinite amount of matter to be squeezed into a small ball by an even more infinite amount of pressure - which would have to be equal on all sides... so where did all this matter & pressure come from???
580755
About the only thing I ever heard that made any sense was that there was another universe. The idea was that you have a big bang, which throws all the matter in the Universe outward from the center. After a while (a LONG while) gravity starts pulling these pieces closer together again and you get what's called the Big Crush, where the whole universe get's squidged up into a tiny, infinitely small point. The theory went on to say, that that spot would explode in a Big Bang and the whole thing would start all over again.
561306
you should read more into string theroy and the M theory.  they are both very interesting.  it is hard to wrap your mind around but  this is just one universe that goes along a membrane of universes that goes on infinetely.  the science channel often has show that explin all this much better and they make it pretty easy to understand.
386524
If M-theory is correct, the Big Bang may have been caused by a collision between other universes so you may find other universes (perhaps with differing physics to our own) beyond our universe. Otherwise you would find nothing.
729095
Sometimes, when people cannot fathom or answer an issue, they turn to blind faith for that answer.  That is not the scientific approach and, carried to extremes, such blind faith can lead to the Dark Ages when very little was done to advance mankind's knowledge.\n\nThat being said, string theory can lead one to conjecture about the pre-big bang.  (I like your "big suck" idea by the way.)  String theory conjectures the possibility of parallel null universes, devoid of observable mass-energy as we know it.  Then, according to the theory, two of these big nothings collide.  Since they have an eternity to do it in, one can even show (using simple probability) at least one such collision is likely over an infinity (eternal) number of attempts.\n\n(If the concept of two "nothings" colliding gives you a headache, join the crowd.  Nothing, however, is only nothing in our limited four dimensional observable universe.  String theory goes up as high as eleven dimensions; so if these null universes exist in these higher dimensions, they would seem to be nothing to us because we cannot see beyond four dimensions.)\n\nSo two null universes collide.  When they do, the collision releases a lot (I mean A LOT) of energy (and mass, its all a jumble in the beginning).  That released energy-mass is what we on Earth now call the "big bang."\n\nThe last part of your question, re another big bang in our universe, is also a possibility according to string theory.  There is no reason to limit our null universe to just one collision with another null universe.  We can say "at least" one collision, because we live in one of the results.  \n\nBut there could very well be others, where our null universe has collided with other null universes, and not necessarily the one our null collided with to create the observable universe we live in.  Which brings up the possibility that other observable universes in our null universe might be totally different from our own.
1074557
Is the Big Bang Theory still as widely accepted in the scientific world? Or is it losing ground to other theories?\n\nThe Big Bang Theory indicates that we live in an ever-expanding universe, moving away from every other universe on the fabric of space-time.  Although some scientists are careful to point out that “Andromeda, our nearest large galactic neighbor, is actually moving toward us, not away. Such exceptions arise because Hubble's law describes only the average behavior of galaxies (Scientific American March 2005).”\n\nBelief in One Theory\n\nSo many take the position that “my idea is all correct and your idea is all wrong.”  These ideas can be labeled as theories, doctrines, or whatever; they challenge us to examine our ideas and the views of others.  If we are insecure, we prefer to dismiss the viewpoints of others rather than examine our own.  However, if we are emotionally mature, we tend to be willing to review our own position and seek the merit in the perspective of others.  Such emotional maturity was once defined as “I am what I am, nothing better, nothing worse, and I find it good.”  This non-competitive stance is essential for open-minded pursuit of truth and knowledge.\n\nAny one who knows about blueprints, mechanical drafting, or architecture understands that it takes at least 3 different viewpoints to be able to accurately understand and recreate anything.  The most commonly used are the top, side, and front views.  For example, a table from the top view is a long and wide rectangle.  From the front view it is narrow and long.   From the side view it is narrow and short.  It is fruitless to argue that any one of these perspectives is false.\n\nIn layman’s terms, we might say that the sky is blue.  Someone else that it is orange.  In comprehensive reality, we can admit that it is sometimes blue and sometimes orange; indeed, sometimes it can be both at the same time.\n\nScientists may argue that light consists of waves, not particles.  Other scientists might insist that light is made of particles, not waves.  However, many modern scientists are beginning to embrace the necessity of models that include both these concepts.  Moreover, the characteristics of something do not have to be restricted to only 2 or 3 substantiated theories or viewpoints; a deep understanding of things may involve a panoramic examination of multiple views, like a spinning and swerving car in a television commercial.\n\nWith that foundation, let us examine the Big Bang Theory, in relation to other current theories of cosmology.  Let me point out the relative merits of each position briefly and how they could possibly harmonize.\n\nBig Bang\n\nThe Big Bang Theory remains the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe.  The red shift of light from distant nebulas proves that everything is moving away from a starting point, an expanding universe.  The fact that there is a relationship between these celestial objects speed and their distance reinforces their common origin.  If true, there should be cosmic background radiation, and there is.  Physics tends to support the details of the theory including the cooling that may have lead to the sequential creation of matter and antimatter particles, including quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos and photons.  Similarly, the relative properties of the basic elements tend to support their sequential development, including deuterium (heavy hydrogen), tritium and helium.  The ratio of one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen is a constant in the universe today.\n\nUnresolved problems with this theory are the age of the universe and the basis on a “singularity” (an event which defies current rules of physics).   Also, while the Big Bang Theory defines an event of creation, it does not define what caused it to happen.\n\nThe Big Crunch\n\nIf the total gravitational force of all matter is high enough, it would slow the expansion of the
1024867
Yes, scientists who support the Big Bang Theory are wrong.\nBut so are Creationists.\nThe background radiation and red shift are otherwise explainable\nwithin a suitable cosmology.\n\nLet me start (it's complex, but here goes).\n\nThe universe has always existed.\nIt will always exist.\nIts form and contents change over time.\n\nThe Radius of the Universe (R) is constant, \napproximately 20 billion light-years.\n\nThe Age of the Universe (T) is constant,\napproximately 20 billion years.\n\nThe speed-of-light-in-a-vacuum (c) is constant,\napproximately 3x10^10 cm/sec,\nor 1 light-year per year.\n\nAnd R == cT.
4816
Okay, so you know how quantum physics shows us that all points in space, all bits of matter are at any moment both a particle and a wave.  And Einstein's special theory of relativity shows us that all light is made of waves.  And these two theories combine in interesting ways, but don't completely gel.  For decades physicists have been struggling to reconcile the two theories, but they have been unable to do so effectively.  Something was always holding them back, basically because the universe seems to be holding more energy than there is space in the points of known mass.  This made scientists wonder where all the energy was.  And then they discovered, that the space in between the atoms was itself teeming with life.  And the life that lives at the bottom of all matter, inside the shell of the tiniest waves of photons, or quanta, is a strange world of simultaneously vibrating strings.  And those strings of multi-demensional vibrating pulsating energy play in a kind of metaphysical choir, creating all the intricacies of mass and energy in the universe, as if these tiny little strings were conductors conducting a vast symphony, only they were conducting that symphony with the conductors of all the other symphonies of the atoms they were orchestrating with.  And those collections of atoms and molecules and other interesting bits were actually being played by an army of conductors conducting simultaneously with an entire legion of instruments singing and strumming away.\n\nString theory is mind-bogglingly wild, because it's so advanced.  It took PBS three hours to explain it completely, and I was still lost.  Only when I completed the book about the show's research did I have a deeper grasp of it.  Basically you just need to know that these little strings that vibrate in 6, up to 10 dimensions (depending on whose theory applies to that particular "particle" - I told you, it's mind-blowing)  and how they vibrate impacts what manifests on the level of perceptible reality.\n\nWhat's so incredible about this is that science is finally catching up to philosophy.  The Middle Way, or what Huxley called the Perennial Philosophy, has always told us that the perception of life is merely the perception of imperceptible changes on a fundamental and/or spiritual nature, and the manifestation of those changes in the world that we see around us.  In many traditional cultures, those changes are manipulated by otherworldy figures, gods, angels and the like, which is outside the scope of scientists to discern, but in today's physics, the wall between the reality we see and the reality that is real is paper-thin.  Scientists are beginning to discover that everything truly is everything, and once they can prove it, life can get a whole lot more sane, because folks will have realized that what we are today is what we were twenty thousand years ago, we are one indescribable circle trailing itslef through time, perhaps even creating subtle vibrations that resonate with other vibrating universes that themselves are creating a reality in a world far, far different than this one, beyond all perceptible consciousness.  Perhaps, there may even be a heaven, in which all this is taking place and yet life is going on and on and on, without fear or violence or pain.\n\nEnjoy your continuing discovery of the details behind string theory.  It truly is a fascinating subject.
465485
Because "String Theory" as a whole has not yet made falsifiable predictions that would allow it to be experimentally tested, though various special corners of the theory are accessible to planned observations and experiments.\n\nInterest in string theory is driven largely by the hope that it will prove to be a theory of everything. It is a possible solution of the quantum gravity problem, and in addition to gravity it can naturally describe interactions similar to electromagnetism and the other forces of nature. Superstring theories include fermions, the building blocks of matter, and incorporate supersymmetry. It is not yet known whether string theory will be able to describe a universe with the precise collection of forces and matter that is observed, nor how much freedom to choose those details that the theory will allow.
665502
String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles) that are the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics. For this reason, string theories are able to avoid problems associated with the presence of pointlike particles in a physical theory. Studies of string theories have revealed that they require not just strings, but also higher-dimensional objects.\n\nThe basic idea is that the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of energy of the Planck length (about 10-35 m) which vibrate at resonant specific frequencies[1]. Another key claim of the theory is that no measurable differences can be detected between strings that wrap around dimensions smaller than themselves and those that move along larger dimensions (i.e., physical processes in a dimension of size R match those in a dimension of size 1/R). Singularities are avoided because the observed consequences of "big crunches" never reach zero size. In fact, should the universe begin a "big crunch" sort of process, string theory dictates that the universe could never be smaller than the size of a string, at which point it would actually begin expanding.
290268
People would take you more seriously if you wrote in proper English.\n\nYou have good thinking skills!  You are asking the right questions; keep it up!\n\nYour questions are dealt with in the field of "cosmology," which is a branch of physics.  Specifically, you are asking questions about the Theory of Relativity and the Big Bang.\n\nAccording to the Theory of Relativity, the structure of space is defined by the gravitational field generated by matter.  According to the Big Bang theory, everything began as an infinitely small, infinitely dense point about 13.7 billion years ago.  This point exploded, and continues to explode, so that matter and energy fly outward.  This is called "the expansion of the universe."\n\nWhen you put relativity together with the Big Bang, that means that space is expanding.  No one knows what space is expanding into, and at present, there is no way of knowing.  The Universe might be expanding into another, larger Universe, or it might be expanding into nothing.  This "nothing" is not a vacuum, it is litteraly nothing.  There would be no matter and no energy, not even gravity to give structure to the nothing.\n\nIs there an end to space?  If the Universe is expanding into nothing, then there is an end.  It is the outer edge of the gravitational waves being emitted by the Universe's matter.  Electromagnetic radiation would probably extend as far as the gravitational waves.  Matter would be lagging far behind the wavefront.\n\nIf the Universe is expanding into another Universe, then there is an end to our Universe; it is at the interface with the other Universe.  What this interface is like, is impossible to know because we have no knowledge of what the other Universe is like.  Suppose it is identical to ours, the same forces--gravity, electromagnatism, strong, and weak--and the same matter--hadrons and leptons. In that case, the interface would probably be a shockwave where matter was compressed by the advance of our Universe, but on either side of the shockwave, space would be continuous.\n\nBut suppose the larger Universe was much different than ours.  Who knows what kind of wild interaction takes place at the boundary?  It might be something mild, as in the case of a similar Universe, or it might be utter annihilation, or anything in betwee.  In this dissimilar Universe scenario, the space of our Universe would have a definite boundary, and on the other side of it would exist a different kind of space.  There is no sensible way to guess at what it might be like.\n\nNow, we have estabilished that if the Universe is expanding into "nothing" that there is a definite end to space.  However, if the Universe is expanding into something (another Universe), then, does space have an end.  Well, that is an unanswerable question because we have no knowledge of the larger universe.  Maybe it originated in a big bang, the way ours did, in which case it also has a definite ending.  But maybe it has always existed and goes on forever.  There is no way to know.\n\nYou are asking very good questions.  You will probably find it very interesting to read about the Theory of Relativity and the Big Bang.  Below are a couple of links and you can find a lot more by searching the Internet.  Your school or public library will have books on the subject, and of course, you can talk to your teachers.\n\nGood luck, and keep asking questions!
91646
String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles) that are the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics. For this reason, string theories are able to avoid problems associated with the presence of pointlike particles in a physical theory. Studies of string theories have revealed that they require not just strings but also higher-dimensional objects.\n\nThe basic idea is that the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of energy of the Planck length (about 10-35 m) which vibrate at resonant specific frequencies[1]. Another key claim of the theory is that no measurable differences can be detected between strings that wrap around dimensions smaller than themselves and those that move along larger dimensions (i.e., effects in a dimension of size R equal those whose size is 1/R). Singularities are avoided because the observed consequences of "big crunches" never reach zero size. In fact, should the universe begin a "big crunch" sort of process, string theory dictates that the universe could never be smaller than the size of a string, at which point it would actually begin expanding.\n\nInterest in string theory is driven largely by the hope that it will prove to be a theory of everything. It is a possible solution of the quantum gravity problem, and in addition to gravity it can naturally describe interactions similar to electromagnetism and the other forces of nature. Superstring theories include fermions, the building blocks of matter, and incorporate supersymmetry. It is not yet known whether string theory is able to describe a universe with the precise collection of forces and matter that is observed, nor how much freedom to choose those details the theory will allow. String theory as a whole has not yet made falsifiable predictions that would allow it to be experimentally tested, though various special corners of the theory are accessible to planned observations and experiments.\n\nWork on string theory has led to advances in mathematics, mainly in algebraic geometry. String theory has also led to other theories, supersymmetric gauge theories, which will be tested at the new Large Hadron Collider experiment.
81505
It is believed that that since the universe evolved out on 'nothing'.....so every matter has an anti-matter..(since the sum total of all matter and anti-matter is zero in universe)...so chances are there are is another earth (anti-matter of where we are)....and hence the all the people and other things are in pairs......BUT, all these are theories...there are no scientific validations of these.
571217
You misunderstand the Big Bang theory. The universe did not start from a big ball of matter. For the first 10-34 seconds we simply don't have the physcis figured out as to what happened. There are many conjectures, though.\n\nThe first difficulty is that General Relativity predicts something called a singularity at the Big Bang. A singularity is something like what you see at the north pole. There is no 'north of the north pole' simply because the coordinate system can't be extended that way. Under General Relativity, there is no 'before the Big Bang' because thw time coordinate cannot be extended past that point. Remember that time itself is part of the structure of the universe, so time began when the universe did (in this view).\n\nAnother view is obtained through quantum mechanics. We know that modern vacuums are never completely empty. They are a blur of particles apperaring and disappearing all the time. The state of having absolutely nothing is actually a very high energy state. When that state decayed into a lower energy state, that provided the energy that subsequently became the matter we see around us. In this scenario, the singularity predicted by relativity is blurred out by the quantum effects, but the net result is that all the matter literally came out of a vacuum. This is possible without violating conservation of energy because the vacuum state 'befroe the Big Bang' had a higher energy than all the matter we see around us.\n\nAnother possibility is a 'bouncing universe' where the universe goes through cycles of collapse and expansion. The collapse before the current cycle provided the energy for the current one. There are modifications to this where 'universes' bud off of the vacuums of other ones.\n\nAll of this is highly speculative. However, we do know that a Big Bang is how things got started about 13.7 billion years ago. We see the afterglow of the hot, dense time at the beginning all around us in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CBE).
1095952
Not only do we not know almost nothing, but what we know may be in error. Under the new string theory, we learn that matter does not actually exist, it's just a creation of tiny, vibrating strings. That explains why the original "big bang" created such a large Universe out of practically nothing. We just recently learned there is not nearly enough gravity to keep the moon in orbit. Not by half. What keeps it in orbit? Using the string theory, there is gravity in several of the other 26 dimensions, and that is what holds it in place. If I made a list of facts that we all know, which are not true, it would fill a concert hall. The biggest myth of all is religious beliefs, which were all created by man for monetary gain. It worked and it was an easy sell. Nobody wants to simply die. There is nothing wrong with ignorance, unless we seek it. That makes us stupid, as well as ignorant.
915186
Since the big bang was an explosion OF space rather than in space, your logic will not work.  Wherever you are in the Universe, everything is going away from you.