Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

(no name) ((no email))
22 Apr 1995 16:14:02 GMT

In article <>, (Richard S. Brice) writes:
|> In article <3n6tkn$> (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
|> >In <> (Gil Hardwick) asserts:
|> >
|> >>To assert that such an explosion JUST HAPPENED out of nothing defies
|> >>everything we know about explosions. And catastrophes.
|> >
|> >
|> >But not everything we know about physics. Quantum mechanics permits
|> >temporary violations of the conservation laws. The visible universe
|> >may be one such.
|> >
|> >
|> The two comments above seem to have strange consequences.
|> If there was a big bang, and if "we" are the result of one,
|> and if our concept of time "began" at the BB, then quantum
|> mechanics seems to allow permanent violations of the
|> conservation laws since no amount of elapsed time (in our
|> current universe) can represent anything other than
|> temporary, i.e. NOT infinite (unless of course the universe
|> collapes to a non existent state).
|> Whats wrong with this picture?
|> R. Brice

The basic idea is the uncertainty principle as stated in the form

delta E x delta t > h-bar/2pi

delta E = energy fluctuation
delta t = time

at extremely early times in the universe (say around 10^-43 seconds)
delta t can be extremely small and hence delta E can be large

for instance, delta t could be 10^-43 meaning delta E is 10^15

so if quantum mechanics holds at these early times (and who knows if
it does) then large energy fluctuations will result - our universe
could be one such fluctuation