Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab

[smileyman]

For those who were around 13.7 billion years ago to observe. Science has come to the wrong conclusions before...who knows what new evidence we may discover?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by smileyman

For those who were around 13.7 billion years ago to observe. Science has come to the wrong conclusions before...who knows what new evidence we may discover?

Unfortunately we're a little late to see the Big Bang since we can observe objects that are 18-20 billion light-years away, and the seminal event is presumed to have taken place roughly 13-and-change billion years ago, based on observations of colour-shifted objects. Until we can tear matter apart and "carbon date" to components, we aren't likely to get a great deal of additional information.

As such it's the best explanation we have for how the whole mess came into being.

[smileyman]

Well the super colliders seem to have the potential to someday tear some real mass. Maybe it will open another door to study matter. And someday maybe we'll understand more about the events that precipitated the 'Bang'

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by smileyman

And someday maybe we'll understand more about the events that precipitated the 'Bang'

Shit, that's easy.

A Camaro, nine Quaaludes and a bottle of Southern Comfort.

Mystery solved.

JC

[Apoc]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Shit, that's easy.

A Camaro, nine Quaaludes and a bottle of Southern Comfort.

Mystery solved.

JC

Quaaludes? Didnt they die with Elvis Presley? Havent seen those in forever!

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Apoc

Quaaludes? Didnt they die with Elvis Presley?

Why do you think we brought his fat ass up here?

The guy's a pharmaceutical pinata.

JC

[smileyman]

[Apoc]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Why do you think we brought his fat ass up here?

The guy's a pharmaceutical pinata.

JC

Seriously, I havent heard of Quaaludes since highschool (hinting at how old you really are by bringing it up)

I pine for the days when getting high meant LSD, PCP, quaaludes, and pot. This new shit is too hardcore, lol.

[njchopper87]

Originally Posted by smileyman

So for a billionth of a trillionth of a second we are pretty certain we recreated what we think might have happened over 13:7 trillion years ago on a scale that was a gazillionth times bigger.

I think science takes alot more faith than religion...

All right lemme try my hand at this.. you are correct in the fact that this specific event happened way back when, however if you look at what we have to observe today we can link it back to the big bang as supporting evidence.

Bare in mind I'm still in the process of learning everything here, but I'm going to do this step by step (more to help me remember it then anything haha). I'm also aware this is theory.

In high mass stars, the core is extremely dense and hot. Hot enough to make elements beyond iron (where fusion stops). In the event of neutron capture, isotopes of elements are formed by adding 1 neutron at a time until the nucleus becomes unstable. When it becomes unstable, it radioactively decays forming a new element. Then that element undergoes the same process until we get to bismuth which is the heaviest known non-radioactive nucleus. This process is called the s-process, or slow process.

If a neutron tries to attach its self onto the bismuth nucleus, it just decays on the spot. So, we need another explanation as to why we have heavier even heavier elements still. This is where the r-process, or rapid process, comes into play. It is thought that this process happens literally during a supernova explosion of a massive star. During the first 15 minutes of the supernova, there is a large number of free neutrons available that were broken off from heavier nuclei from the seriousness of the explosion. Now, unstable nuclei decay as they form, but because of the explosive force neutrons are indeed able to attach themselves. This is happening out in space right now (or at least as often as supernovas occur).

Technetium was observed via spectroscopy on red giants. This is a radioactive element that helps prove the s-process occurs. It is possible in the lab to artificially create this and heavier radioactive elements. While we can't physically see inside a star, we just recreated the synthesis going on inside it.

So why the hell did I just waste my time typing that? To get to this point. While I'm no major in physics, I'd say the fact that they surpassed "just" producing elements here on earth pretty much solidifies the big bang, or any other related theory that might come of it. They just proved that those conditions are possible for one, and that they did it.

You don't need faith to believe in science; you need theory.

Is the big bang theory correct? Who the hell knows, its just the best we got at the moment. It sure as hell makes sense to me, that big bang could have been an enormous core of a star exploding. They're finding out new shit every day.

Source.. Astronomy Today by Chaisson Mcmillan 6th ed.

I just studied by posting on a motorcycle forum. I'm awesome. Now to do the homework I should have been doing in the first place..