TED Conversations

stan hummel

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Does anyone understand the Big Bang theory?

It is said that the theory of relativity is understood by several people (or a few more)... but i'm curious if anyone understands the Big Bang theory (+Infation). because it isn't so obvious at all.
why i think so, don't know exactly... just suppose... but assure nobody is going to refute this theory! just a few small doubts.
but the real problem is... do we really fully understand what it all might mean?
however (for facilitation) we won't be considering fates of the entire universe.
rather more interesting is what happens with us... real issue is the fate of our lost mind.
At the beginning we have something very small. our future universe is not the size of galaxy, earth, grain of sand... is much more tiny... just a POINT!
But the essence of this consideration is not vanity or divinity that point.
The real problem is moment (or thought process) in which the Real Universe turns into a Mathematical Universe.
know, it isn't easy to understand with such a modest possibilities of our mind.
however, if seems to us it's absolutely not a problem, just a logical consequence... so we probably have already crossed the border! but it's quite other story!
so how we are supposed to understand the universe when we don't have the slightest idea what we want to understand?

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 16 2013: Existence seems to demand the roundness of a three dimensional sphere. Can non-existence exist? Can there be a 2 dimensional plane that is not made of matter that has implication on matter without being of matter? If you look at the pinwheels of galaxies, as big as they are, they seem to be flung out relatively flat and thin--as if the arms of the spiral orbit the center on the edge of a 2-D wafer. I'm perplexed that we can talk so much about the nature of matter and atoms but after a giant star produces a neutron star or "black hole" there is no explanation of the matter these things are made of. Neutron stars are obviously spherical and exist in 3 dimensions. They must therefore be explained in terms of elements of matter. I asked similar questions of the so-called "black hole" and wondered how can we call something like that a "hole"? Is it a sphere in three dimensions made of matter with certain properties which must be explained in terms of elemental matter?, or is it flat--a two dimensional region of "implication" which bears consequence on matter but isn't matter itself?

    Is the reason we can't see a "black hole" because unless we are looking perpendicular to it, it disappears into flathood? If it's not flat, should we continue to call it a hole? If you assume that "gravity" causes a star to form why should anything exist after a star explodes? If something remains that has enormous attractive power one must ask the chicken or egg question ie. was there the presence of some phenomenon to cause the collapse which is preserved and added to? When a black hole "feeds" is it just that matter has come close which is not on the precise axis with the "hole"? Or is this nuts? Either it's a hole or a sphere. And if it's a hole, which becomes invisible if we look at it from a parallel edge, we have to realize that we are talking about non-existence as existing. When something exists and doesn't exist, it comes into line with things that exist on two places at once.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.