What is Digg?269 Comments
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -10/+95@sunnyd:
-------My biggest question about this whole big bang theory is, what surrounded the subatomic particle that grew to the size of the universe? "
Nothing. There was no space for there to be anything surrounding it. Space itself did not exist.
-------"Nothing? What's nothing made out of?"
It's not made out of anything. It doesn't exist, by definition.
It's not like there was a huge emptiness with a single point of stuff in it.. There was literally nothing at all. It's like asking what's outside the universe: Nothing is outside the universe, the universe *has no outside*. It's just that at moment of t=0, the universe consisted of a single point, with zero dimensions. It's where the math all breaks down. It's where everything starts.
--------"It's really hard to imagine nothing existing at some point and is suddenly triggered to a massive explosion... who triggered it and where did all that energy come from?"
Well, first you assume that somebody could have triggered it. Time is not independant of the universe. Space and time are inextricably linked. There was no "before" the beginning. That's why it's called "the beginning". It's not like there was nothing for a long time and then something appeared in it. There was no actual time for there to be nothing in.
The reason you can't grasp it is because the words are wrong. English fundamentally assumes a "before" and "after" and a continual flow of time. The language was developed with the assumptions. And since you actually think in language (or in equivalent symbols, since it's provably impossible to think without thinking in symbols), then your very thoughts themselves are making the same assumption. However, that assumption is false to fact at the point where t=0. There was no "before the big bang". It's simply the starting point for everything. Space, time, matter, everything.
As to where all the energy came from, well, that's a tough question. In the way you're thinking of reality, it came from nowhere. In actual fact, it came from everywhere, since the only place that existed was that place itself, which expanded to become everywhere that is. The truth is that the question doesn't make sense given reality. :) - sunnyd, on 10/12/2007, -9/+46My biggest question about this whole big bang theory is, what surrounded the subatomic particle that grew to the size of the universe? Nothing? What's nothing made out of? It's really hard to imagine nothing existing at some point and is suddenly triggered to a massive explosion... who triggered it and where did all that energy come from?
No need to answer any of those questions, maybe us humans are too primitive to imagine such things. - digitalsin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurmama - kingtubby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26Just because we haven´t fully explained everything yet, doesn´t mean we wont. I agree that the human mind has trouble comprehending a million years/a million miles etc. But math has no such boundaries. We´ll get there, I think.
- caffiend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22I agree with you, sunnyd. I believe our minds just can't grasp the universe just as we can't really comprehend what a million years time is like.
- JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19You can't really ask "what was before the beginning of the universe" and "what was there before the universe existed", because time and space are properties of the universe. I agree it's a very difficult concept to wrap your brain around, but there is no such thing as "before the universe" or "outside the universe".
- iWorks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I'm waiting for Big Bang II "With a Vengance" to come out.
- skoles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14It's just amazing to try and fathom what it was like in the instant before it happening. What was there? Blackness? How did it start?
Amazing *****, this science is. - LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Indeed. Instigators should be shot. They're like alligators, but quicker.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20blahblah: "Further, there is no scientific understanding of "outside the universe." We have not observed it, we can only theorize. To say otherwise is to lie flat outright."
*****. You're distorting the language entirely.
There is no "outside the universe", period, because the universe includes everything that there is, by definition. To say that the universe even *has* an outside is complete and utter bunk. It's not just non-scientific, it's totally meaningless.
Science doesn't address things that have no meaning. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17@blahblah: His questions were framed in the context of the big bang theory itself. My answers should be taken as answers in that context. I'll be damned if I'm going to put "this is just a theory" or anything similar in every response I give that's science related just to satisfy some damned religious loonies. Either you accept the science or you don't, and if you don't then I have absolute no interest in appeasing your particular belief system.
@diggnate:
The singularity was not matter of some sort, particles did not come into existance until well after the big bang. It was just radiation for quite a long time. It wasn't "in" anything, as there was nothing else for it to be in. And no, the laws of physics did not exist, they came into existance a measureable amount of time after the expansion began. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@diggnate:
------What would happen if we were able to reach the "edge" of the universe? What would we run into? What's just past the "edge"? If your answer is "nothing", then what would it be that would keep us from traveling past the "edge"?
Again, English fails. The universe doesn't necessarily have an edge, though it has width and size and such. The edge of the observable universe is 13.7 billion light years away. That's how far back we can see. The estimated actual distance to that edge (because of the increased rate of the expansion of the universe) is about 78 billion light years or so.
But the question you're really asking is "What is the shape of the universe?", or in more complex terms, "Is the universe spacially finite?" In the standard Big Bang model, the universe has no spacial boundary but may be spatially finite. If it is spatially finite, then if you pick a direction and travel that way long enough, eventually you end up in the same place you started from. Think of your world if you lived on the surface of a sphere. Pick a direction, you travel around the sphere. It's a 2d world on a 3d object. Well, the universe might be the 3d surface of a 4d shape.
Really, the answer is simple: "We don't know". You can theorize about the shape of the universe all day, but there's no evidence either way. However, it does not have an outside any way you look at it, if the Big Bang model is correct.
---------Also, concerning your statement of the makeup of the singularity being radiation. What kind of radiation?
Err... you ask that as if there is more than one kind of radiation. :) Light, heat, energy, it's all the same.
---------How did that radiation become matter?
It cooled down. Same way it happens now. E=MC^2, right? That equation works both ways. You can turn matter into energy (nuclear fission, fusion, etc), but it works the other way too. Think of matter as condensed energy. That's not accurate, but it helps to understand the idea. You've got water vapor in the air, right? It condenses on the side of your glass when it cools down. Energy does the same sort of thing when it cools down.
---------Is there a reason for why/how it exploded?
Probably. No idea what it was, but probably.
---------Also, if there was "nothing" before the big bang, was the radiation considered "something" or "nothing"?
Something. It's still something now. :)
--------When and why did they (laws of physics) come into existence?
Lot of debate there, but the general idea is that the early universe was asymmetric, and the resulting laws of physics are a result of that asymmetry. Bit hard to explain. I recommend reading books on the subject. - Goracle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I do tend to find it odd how other Christians find it so hard to grasp that the Big Bang could easily be God's way of creating the universe. That is where modern day Christianity falls short, in my opinion. Creationists are to quick too push away science, and not find ways that it can strengthen religion and work with religion to form a more concrete picture. I personally am a Christian, and believe that the "Big Bang" was simply God forming the universe. There is no natural way that sort of happening can come from nothing. Therefore I turn to the supernatural, the only explanation for a complete impossibility.
- ziffel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Lucas, citing that an atheist is the minority lends no more credence to your 'bearded man in the sky' delusion, than did the vast majority believing in a flat earth make it flat. Humans are largely ignorant, and it's the minority who are willing to look at objective facts and see truth, rather than ignore them and continue believing in fantastical beings in the sky.
- diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12not to be confrontational, but I really haven't seen any creationists on here causing any trouble, but for some reason, you felt it was necessary to take a jab. I'm just wondering why this is so necessary.
- blahblah, on 10/12/2007, -15/+22Otto, I don't know how you can come up with these answers and state them as if you are stating fact, but I don't think it is healthy discourse when someone pretends they know the answers to what are obviously currently unanswerable questions.
Say, "scientists theorize," but don't say there was no time before the big bang, or that nothing existed outside of the (theorized) singularity at the start of the big bang. The truth is, we don't have those answers.
A remarkable phenomenon is that people will believe anything that someone states authoritatively. That is how the popularity of "creationism" and "global warming skepticism" can come to be. Anyone can give a talk and speak as if they are an authority on a subject, and make somepletely baseless statements, and the majority of people in the audience will believe them. - timbellomo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7That's funny; a Catholic priest came up with the Big Bang Theory (though, I don't believe he coined the term)... Father Georges-Henri Lemaître
take that instead. - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@Otto
"There was no "before the big bang". It's simply the starting point for everything. Space, time, matter, everything."
I only have one problem with your entire post. you say that before the big bang, there was nothing, but that goes against the idea of singularity. the singularity was matter, of some sort, right? did it have properties? what was it "in"? A giant explosion did not create the laws of physics, rather, didn't the laws of physics, friction, trigger the bang? I have more questions, but I'll save it. - t0dd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What we really cant comprehend is the higher dimensions predicted by string theory. Give us some time though! IF we survive a few more hundred years I think there may be no limit to what we can figure out.
- rageguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I dont think you should be filling in that gap with god just yet, I'm certain the bigbang will be explained in more scientific terms eventually, just like the stars, the atom and all the other frontiers of science previously beleived to be unreachable or finite.
If and I stress if there was some uberly powerful dude who created the universe, I'd like to think he works in a way that is so mysterious to us, that no human would ever be able to understand him in simple terms. There'll always be a fronteir of science that we do not understand at the time, to suggest that a god is right around the corner of that frontier is short sighted. - blahblah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12There is no scientific model for how the universe existed at t=0. If you say that there is, then you are making pure speculations. Further, there is no scientific understanding of "outside the universe." We have not observed it, we can only theorize. To say otherwise is to lie flat outright.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Berean, please stop abusing the comment system by spamming the same messages over and over again. I've counted you copying and pasted the same stuff four times so far in this one thread alone.
- LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Perhaps the uneducated right. The Big Bang theory does not, in any way, contradict the Bible. As the reply above states, the Big Bang theory actually forces one to consider the existence of a Prime Mover, a being who set off the bang.
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Actually, the Catholic church is probably more behind the idea of evolution and the big bang theory than any other major Christian denomination.
I'm sure you know about their prestigious astronomy department, right? Kind of ironic considering their reaction to early astronomers... - Wireddd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8don't bash science because you can't understand it.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I, personally, don't know. The initial origins of the universe don't matter much to me, but last I checked we determined what happened to a few quadrillionths of a second afterwards. I'm convinced that we will continue to find evidence and improve our understanding of this area though.
I find it interesting that the site you linked to ( http://nwcreation.net/ ) is not allowing the creation of new accounts. - itistoday, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Hi all, I have several things to say on this topic.
1) This is old news, I did a report on this in 10th grade chemistry class a while back, essentially saying the exact same thing this article is saying. If they did discover something new from 3 year old data it's certainly not explained in this article.
2) In regards to what happened before the big bang and what was "around" the singularity, here is the answer:
Several people here claim that the big bang was the "start". This is incorrect. There was never a start, and there will never be a finish. The universe has always existed, and it is the only thing that exists, and it is infinite. Note: I am not denying the big-bang, simply saying that as time goes on the universe re-arranges itself.
As to the question "what is time": Time is simply the rate at which matter changes. It is a completely arbitrary rate whose rate depends solely on the piece of matter you use to define it. We use the rate at which quartz molecules change for our definition of a "second". Keep in mind that since time is linked directly to matter, its value changes according to general relativity, meaning that its rate in one reference frame with respect to another is different.
As to your question of "where did the stuff come from", the answer to this I am not 100% sure on, but I will try my best to answer it for you: I've already asserted that the universe has always existed, and will always exist, but as to its composition, well... here's a theory of mine: Take a ball of clay. This is the universe. It's currently made of "one" thing. Pinch it some, create dimples on it. Now you will see that it's made up of multiple things. Keep pinching it and forming new dimples in the dimples you already made. Repeat this process indefinitely; you have yourself a fractal. Now, you are one of those dimples, and you ask yourself: "Where did all this energy and matter come from?" The answer is that it has always been there, and it has simply pinched itself into a phenomenal array of detail.
There are many scientific laws that support my assertions, but the most prominent one is the most fundamental law in physics, upon which all else is based, and it's sometimes known as the first law of thermodynamics, though all of you are more familiar with it simply: "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, simple converted from one form of energy to another".
Good day. ^_^ - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@lucas
well, I believe that man invented god. Humans were unable to explain something, so we say "god must have done it." However, as science progresses, we realize that god isn't needed anymore.
There is no more "Zeux, the god of thunder, creates lightning" since we know what creates lightning already. Or Poseidon, the god of the sea. Or Vayu, the wind god. Or (insert some god's name here). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Political conservatism has nothing to do with belief in science. It is unfortunate that some radical religious population overlaps with the right more often than the left, but as a fiscal conservative and a firm supporter of real science, I can assure you that your statement is based on misconception.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Google up "The Elegant Universe"..watch it and get the answer to most of the questions asked in this thread...heck...here it is:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Greatest online science programme ever! - enzomedici, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7
The scientists say a Big Bang created the universe and religious people say a God went bang and created the Universe. I'm not even sure why these two groups argue because they/re saying the exact same thing about the origin of the universe. The scientists always argue with religion by asking "What was there before your god? There had to be something." But when you ask them what was there before the Big Bang they accept "nothing was there". Well before God there was nothing too. Same ***** answer.
If the Big Bang is "proved" then it just proves what religion has been saying for 2,000 years.
The only fact is that no one knows how all this ***** got here and never will. - Godel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Otto is clearly right, here's a simple proof by contradiction.
Lets define the universe as everything that exists. Now, assume there was an outside to the universe. But then an outside to the universe would exist, but then by definition it would be part of the universe. Therefore no outside to the universe exists.
[Edit: I didn't see Randazzo's post, but yeah what he said, except the same proof proves that there was nothing before the universe too. - r00t3d0ut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I agree that we will eventually come up with the answer of how the universe came to be but it will not be in our lifetime(s). It is complete folly on the part of creationists to think that their neat, little package they've come up with is the actual answer of the universe and its beginning. I agree with what kingtubby said, just because we don't have the answer NOW doesn't mean we won't in the future. I also believe that not only can we not imagine such a beginning but that this primitive thought process may hold us back from discovering alien lifeforms because we wouldn't recognize them even if they were right in front of our faces.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"3. Missing Star Formation. No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies."
This isn't a strong argument. Several attractive forces resulted in particles colliding with each other, forming larger and larger particles until they started forming hydrogen. After there was hydrogen all it took was gravity pulling hydrogen together into objects of increasing mass which eventually ignited as a result of pressure and started fusion, from which larger atoms formed.
All it takes are a few particles not quite being perfectly evenly spaced.
"4. Missing Antimatter. Some versions of the Big Bang theory require an equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons) are found in space."
If matter and antimatter obliterate each other on contact, why would you *expect* to find matter in the universe?
"5. Missing Time. Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the Big Bang to unfold. A short time span would not allow for the gradual evolution of the earth, heavens, and mankind."
If those were scientific experiments, and were to be repeated, then that would indeed mean that the big bang would be impossible. However, since we have records from over 10k years ago that kind of blows that idea right out of the water.
"7. Missing Life. In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is everybody?"
First: Not everywhere, just in many places where sustainable reactions take place. ie: Not in the vacuum of deep space.
Second: Radio signals have travel time, and we're already moving away from radio broadcasts only a century after discovering them. Satellites are too directional and low-power, cable TV has no meaningful emissions, and things like WiFi yield a chaotic aggregate noise that doesn't look like information at all. If we want other planets to know we're here, then we need to set-up a powerful omnidirectional narrow-band transmitter, and if we want to see them then they need to do the same. We would also need to ID their signals as information rather than meaningless noise. If another planet developed radio at the same time as us, we wouldn't find-out for potentially millions of years. - PixelKid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6So which is harder to get your head round? That a being of some sort (lets call it god) created the universe or that everything (& nothing) decided to spontaniously go boom & create the universe in all its intricate detail??
haha if theres a god he sure has some sense of humour :p - jagnum1fan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Ok, check this out... Otto mentions something of importance:
We understand things via our language. Our ideas of beginning and end hinder our ability to understand some things. For instance, when we speak of "Beginning" and "End" we are talking about a geometrical LINE SEGMENT. Meaning that there HAS to be a beginning and an end.
Well, what if, for instance, there is no beginning and there is no end... Time would be a CIRCLE. Why doesn't anyone ever mention this? Why do we always think of time as a line with a beginning and an end? It's really quite an outdated ideology that roots back to our religious ancestors' ways of thinking. Time could very well be a circle if you want it to be. What if there was a point in the circle that we understand (relatively) as "t=0" but, in fact is simply a section on the circle where all energies from a previous universe have converged via, say, black holes eating each other until all energy is consumed, and then restarts for another gazillion bazillion years. This would, I think, help explain a lot off confusion. But, then again, I am a computer engineering major not a Theoretical physicist.
-Kyle - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Calling people idiots is easy, but can you refute what he says? Of course not."
Of course he can. It's just that people like you don't care. So what's the point? - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Otto
I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure that it is intellectually satisfying. Maybe I'm just not able to understand, but I want to, so I'm happy to listen/read.
What would happen if we were able to reach the "edge" of the universe? What would we run into? What's just past the "edge"? If your answer is "nothing", then what would it be that would keep us from traveling past the "edge"?
Also, concerning your statement of the makeup of the singularity being radiation. What kind of radiation? How did that radiation become matter? Is there a reason for why/how it exploded? Also, if there was "nothing" before the big bang, was the radiation considered "something" or "nothing"?
"And no, the laws of physics did not exist, they came into existence a measureable amount of time after the expansion began."
When and why did they come into existence? - matts0344, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The way I see it the Universe was around forever, or there was a beginning of time. I can't understand how either one would work. Being around forever just doesn't make sense and if it wasn't around forever what was there before it?
Maybe its been around both forever and for a finite amount of time? My head hurts... - raid17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The question is not 'what' or 'who' because there was no what or who, because in reality there was no 'what' or 'who'. Your difficult is the same that many humans encounter in that it it is impossible for them to imagine the concept of absolute nothingness. Nonetheless that is the way things were back then. The real question is 'why', why did the Big Bang happen? And that believe it or not is something that scientists have made some quite huge strides in understanding over this last 30 or more years. There are a few competing theories, but the most evidence (and the most compelling) has been gathered for the 'inflation model' described in this story - which also incidentally requires there to have been no single stating event, no 'finger of God' if you will, to kick the whole process off and get it running. Unfortunately understanding this also requires considerable study and is also extremely alien to most human's normal mode of thought - which is why scientists use the language of physics and mathematics to describe it, as this puts the whole idea at least within their grasp. Unfortunately not all of us are privy, or adept at understanding this language, which is why a lot of people adopt easier to grasp explanations, or attempt to subscribe religious or other causes to the primary event, that many people refer to as the Big Bang. (Which is an unfortunate name in itself, because it plants an image in our minds which is not altogether entirely accurate - since expansion is very different from anything most of us would understand as an 'explosion').
GJ - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I am a big fan of theoretical physics and cosmology, and I try to accept many of the things that the scientists in this field say, but "dark matter"? I really have to concur with you on this one. Dark matter seems to be the best explanation of why the universe doesn't match our models. That seems a little deceptive, but even many of the scientists in the field think that it's pretty silly. Most would say that it's better to just say "we don't know" instead of making things up to fit.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4>Wow, lots of arrogant claims from non-Bible believers here.
i don't understand this. its arrogent to say i don't know?
>Interestingly enough, a bunch of galaxies spiral the opposite direction they should if the
>big bang were true.
i think it might be arrogant to make a statement like this. when you say this you
say that you somehow know which side up and which side is down... and that you know
that it has or hasn't been in some collision...
>Coincidently, I believe in a big bang, but not the one you're talking about.
ah, you're talking about nuking iran?
gimmee a break. isn't it way more arrogant to say you know it all and the stuff you don't
know is not knowable by anybody else? - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually, my comment makes it clear that I'm tired of the hypocracy of it all, and frankly, think that anyone adhering to any sort of religion is an idiot and a coward and can't take responsibility for anything. And guess what? I'll tell you why!
They're idiots, because if you truly believe in a religion, that is to say, you TRULY believe the nonsensical mutterings of a few millenia old book that uses ridiculous concepts like infinite power and magic to explain the existence of all things and everything, you, yourself are a child. An idiot in intellect, and these ridiculous concepts, for some reason, appease your childlike grasp on the world.
They're cowards, because they can't face cold, hard realities, which is why they recess into this childlike view on the existence of everything, to shield themselves from these facts: Babies die, because sometimes, babies just die, and there is nothing after this world. People have already debated in here what "nothing" is. It is death. When you die, you will experience (or not experience, for that matter) "nothing" in its most literal of terms. People are not equipped to understand this concept, so they believe in some beautiful place in the clouds where you get to see other people who died, and ***** play bocce ball or something.
And why are they very poor at taking responsibility? It's the idea that your life is controlled by an entity who is supposed to be concerned with every action you've taken (or will take) throughout your entire life. There's no such thing as choice for someone who is devout. Their decisions are supposedly already made for them, and if they ***** up, it was because they were "supposed to" ***** up, not because they are ***** stupid.
So excuse me if I'm ***** tired of a country run by these type of people, who are constantly trying to impose their ideals on me from every angle. - ScoTTeh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"I understand how the engines work now. It came to me in a dream. The engines don't move the ship across the universe. The ship stays in place and the engines move the universe around it." - Cubert J. Farnsworth, Futurama.
- Mousse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Galaxies should all spiral in the same direction?
I don't think you understand the concept to which you claim necessary consequences. - fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Berean, you're doing it wrong.
It goes:
Claim
+SUPPORT
Followed by:
Refutation
+SUPPORT
After which the process repeats. You presented a claim with no support, I refuted the claim WITH support, then you broke out the meaningless "No it isn't!" statements.
I stated that a literal interpretation of the bible is self-contradictory as a result of two conflicting creation stories, and as a paradox is thus impossible. If you want to counter that statement, then you need to provide evidence to the contrary.
The problem is that if you don't read ALL bible verses as STRICTLY literal, then you must admit that SOME of them are NOT literal. Any stories which are not STRICTLY literal are open to interpretation, and as such call into question the literal reading of the bible in general. - dracula7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3our 1 is not necessarily all encompassing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaverse#Multiverse - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3-----Actually, doesn't the equation E=MC^2 simply quantify the amount of energy that matter possesses, therefore requiring mass for energy? Energy and mass are not the same in different forms, but mass possesses energy. Energy by definition is simply the ability to do work, so if energy is just an ability, it can only be possessed, and is not self-sustaining. Just a question, but not really important.
Actually, it's a very important question. The short of it is that you are wrong. Matter and Energy are actually the same thing, in different forms, and that is exactly what e=mc^2 is saying.
Energy is not simply "the ability to do work" except in the most simplistic sense. Don't confuse energies like "potential energy" and "kinetic energy" as the end-all be-all of what the concept of energy actually encompasses. Yes, those are valid forms of energy, but energy as a whole can be independant of mass.
Consider light. Does light have mass? It is affected by gravity, because it bends around stars (lensing effect). It exerts pressure on a surface (as demonstrated by those little spinning things in glass jars), so it clearly transfers momentum. But the answer is in fact, no, light has no mass. It has energy and it has momentum, but it is a massless particle (the photon). It exists as energy alone. If it had mass, it would be unable to travel at light speed, since relativistic mass increases as a function of velocity, making it's mass infinite at light speed, which would require infinite energy. But with a zero mass, it travels at light speed without any problems.
BTW, e=mc^2 is a bit of an oversimplification of the actual equation, but it's close enough for masses travelling at speeds not approaching the speed of light. The actual equation is e=mc^2 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
----------But on the statement "it cooled down", doesn't heat require a medium in which to dissipate in order to "cool down"?
No, it requires that the heat be spread over a larger area. Remember that the universe was expanding, but the amont of energy in the system is a constant. So as the expansion happens, the energy becomes less dense = "cooler". - danielsasona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hmmm..
just to point out an early and fundamental flaw in Thad Hopkins' argument for why evolution and creationism are incompatible:
His argument is based on the idea that death entered into creation (according to the bible) after the 6th day, and that there can be no evolution without death, so there could be no evolution in the 6 days of creationism (assuming you interpret 6 days literally or contextually).
This is untrue. We normally think of evolution/selection as being driven by death weeding out the unfit. Actually, selection favors the "fittest" in terms of reproductive success. Even in a farcical biblical world where God created everything up to man in those 6 days (or eras, same argument) there could be more fit creatures breeding more successfully than others, even if none of them died. Even in a world with no death, then, the most reproductively fit would outbreed the less fit. If then after 6 days (or eras) death entered the world, than there would be more descendants of the fit than the unfit, and natural selection would have had a head start. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I cant help but wonder if, when we finally figure out how the universe started and how we came about, we might be a little disappointed...
ah well -
Show 51 - 100 of 270 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is