How the universe started
Discussion
Kids need to learn that not everything is known for certain, like evolution or plate tectonics. I would have thought the notion that what went before the Big Bang is open to speculation would be far more exciting than giving them a definitive answer (and lieing in doing so!). Science is all about unknowns and pushing the boundaries of knowledge, and I think that's inspiring. You could even tell them that if they work hard at maths and physics they could help to find the answers when they grow up! 
Efbe said:
So, without being all negative, and 'it's far too hard to explain'
Can anyone give me a good explanation for how the universe started that could be given to highschool children? Essentially I need the bit before the big bang
I have tried this myself and failed badly, through basically not knowing the subject well enough.
Think of a paper cone. We're now at the open mouth of the cone where the universe is expanding (and accelerating), now follow the cone back to the sharp point with your finger. When you get to NO cone, that's the bit right before the big bang.Can anyone give me a good explanation for how the universe started that could be given to highschool children? Essentially I need the bit before the big bang
I have tried this myself and failed badly, through basically not knowing the subject well enough.
hidetheelephants said:
You could do worse than park the little darlings in front of Carl Sagan's Cosmos, although they may be amused by his presentation style. There's also a programme on Discovery about this subject, with content from Prof Stephen Hawking(thankfully narrated by Sherlock Cumberholmes rather than Hawking's robot voice!) which might be a bit more contemporary; can't remember what it's called though.
it was called Stephen Hawkinuniverse and excellent it was - recently repeated on Eden or Disc or sim.BC's voice is oddly soothing and the subject matter accessible up to a point...
I haven't got the maths to follow modern scientific theories about the origin of the universe so have to wait for analogies, and these always break down sooner or later, often the former. However, I read a lot of history and, oddly enough, there is a lot in common between the two disciplines, despite, one might think, the differences between science and, to be fair to history, speculation.
However:
One feature of history is that historians, particularly those from universities at contract renewal time, float ideas and then bring in discoveries, accepted wisdom and the latest whizz word to support their contention. They put it in a book and then say, at interview time, that it is in the top ten best seller list of history books on that particular era this year. Or would be, had there been ten books published on the period.
There is also a certain degree of fighting at a distance. Historians have their conclusions rubbished by a colleague so they feel the urge to do the same to them.
Many of these ideas about the origin of the universe, amongst many scientific specialties, seem to be somewhat similar.
The test of a theory is not how it explains that which confuses us now but how it deals with that which is discovered tomorrow and is bewildering.
So are these theorists floating ideas just to be seen, heard and get the funding for their research?
In a book review special in The Times last year they concentrated on new 'histories' of the causes of WWI. There were five of them, four from eminent university lecturers, two so famous that I'd heard of them, plus one from a TV presenter, albeit one with a history masters. They all contradicted one-another, not to mention most of what had been accepted up until then, and it has to be said, since.
The OP should, perhaps, as many have suggested, explain that the answer to how the universe came about it the great question and all we can say for sure is what we have observed. Also tell them not to believe any academic theory from a lecturer of a university that is about to be amalgamated with another.
However:
One feature of history is that historians, particularly those from universities at contract renewal time, float ideas and then bring in discoveries, accepted wisdom and the latest whizz word to support their contention. They put it in a book and then say, at interview time, that it is in the top ten best seller list of history books on that particular era this year. Or would be, had there been ten books published on the period.
There is also a certain degree of fighting at a distance. Historians have their conclusions rubbished by a colleague so they feel the urge to do the same to them.
Many of these ideas about the origin of the universe, amongst many scientific specialties, seem to be somewhat similar.
The test of a theory is not how it explains that which confuses us now but how it deals with that which is discovered tomorrow and is bewildering.
So are these theorists floating ideas just to be seen, heard and get the funding for their research?
In a book review special in The Times last year they concentrated on new 'histories' of the causes of WWI. There were five of them, four from eminent university lecturers, two so famous that I'd heard of them, plus one from a TV presenter, albeit one with a history masters. They all contradicted one-another, not to mention most of what had been accepted up until then, and it has to be said, since.
The OP should, perhaps, as many have suggested, explain that the answer to how the universe came about it the great question and all we can say for sure is what we have observed. Also tell them not to believe any academic theory from a lecturer of a university that is about to be amalgamated with another.
callyman said:
Troubleatmill said:
Start by watching some Lawrence Krauss videos on Youtube.
As enjoyable as they are, would they not be a bit advanced for kids?How about Bill Nye?
Certainly couldn't give you a 'good' explanation for how the universe started, or what was before the big bang because a) as you can appreciate, it's not really known b) my understanding is not necessarily 100% accurate, c) sorry to be negative, but it is a bit of a leap of the imagination; however I will try my damnedest!
It doesn't really make sense to talk about what happened 'before' the big bang because the big bang was the dawn of space and time itself -- there was no time before the big bang. What there was was energy, which is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's mass-energy equivalence E=mc^2. So at the most basic level, that is where all the universe's matter comes from. Guess that's sufficient for high-school kiddies?
However, the mechanism via which that energy spontaneously became the universe is not understood and requires a proper understanding of something called quantum gravity, which is currently lacking. The two main contenders for such a theory are loop gravity and string theory; the latter, you have probably heard of.
Quantum theory at the level of atoms is very well understood, where physical quantities often take only discrete values. For example, the energy of electrons in an atom only take discrete values, which accounts for the lines in atomic spectra. Moreover, you can't say for definite that a system is in a certain quantum state until you observe it. You can only say there is a certain probability that if you observe the system it will be in that configuration.
At the beginning of the universe, the universe is much smaller than the scale of an atom! And at that level space-time itself is subject to quantum theory! In loop gravity, the quantum states are discrete excitations of volume and area -- that is, space-time is not continuous, but more like very fine sand! (At scales much smaller than an atom -- the planck length which is about 10^-34 metres) In string theory, the quantum states are discrete excitations of extended strings, with each excitation representing a certain type of particle. (Which one is the correct theory -- if either of them are -- is the subject of a lot of debate. String theory has had great 'sociological' success to quote a chap called Rovelli, but it rests upon a lot of stuff that there is no evidence for, like something called supersymmetry and that the universe must have ten dimensions; if the LHC does not find evidence for supersymmetry, then string theory won't have a leg to stand on! There are other contenders however, like twistor theory.)
So before the big bang, there is just this 'splodge' of space-time quantum states that is teaming with energy (called space-time foam, named by a bloke called Wheeler), each state having only a certain probability of being observed until the universe collapses into a certain quantum state -- the big bang.
It doesn't really make sense to talk about what happened 'before' the big bang because the big bang was the dawn of space and time itself -- there was no time before the big bang. What there was was energy, which is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's mass-energy equivalence E=mc^2. So at the most basic level, that is where all the universe's matter comes from. Guess that's sufficient for high-school kiddies?
However, the mechanism via which that energy spontaneously became the universe is not understood and requires a proper understanding of something called quantum gravity, which is currently lacking. The two main contenders for such a theory are loop gravity and string theory; the latter, you have probably heard of.
Quantum theory at the level of atoms is very well understood, where physical quantities often take only discrete values. For example, the energy of electrons in an atom only take discrete values, which accounts for the lines in atomic spectra. Moreover, you can't say for definite that a system is in a certain quantum state until you observe it. You can only say there is a certain probability that if you observe the system it will be in that configuration.
At the beginning of the universe, the universe is much smaller than the scale of an atom! And at that level space-time itself is subject to quantum theory! In loop gravity, the quantum states are discrete excitations of volume and area -- that is, space-time is not continuous, but more like very fine sand! (At scales much smaller than an atom -- the planck length which is about 10^-34 metres) In string theory, the quantum states are discrete excitations of extended strings, with each excitation representing a certain type of particle. (Which one is the correct theory -- if either of them are -- is the subject of a lot of debate. String theory has had great 'sociological' success to quote a chap called Rovelli, but it rests upon a lot of stuff that there is no evidence for, like something called supersymmetry and that the universe must have ten dimensions; if the LHC does not find evidence for supersymmetry, then string theory won't have a leg to stand on! There are other contenders however, like twistor theory.)
So before the big bang, there is just this 'splodge' of space-time quantum states that is teaming with energy (called space-time foam, named by a bloke called Wheeler), each state having only a certain probability of being observed until the universe collapses into a certain quantum state -- the big bang.
My theory.
At the centre of every supermassive blackhole there is a lump of mega compressed matter, compressed so hard it is all broken down into subatomic particles, I believe this is called a singularity. It is infinitely small, and infinitely heavy, and of course only gets heavier and more dense as time (outside of the blackhole of couse) goes on.
Eventually it will reach critical mass, and explode as a 'big bang' whether this takes place in the same universe as the black hole, or Dimension, I do not know enough about the physics of black holes to know. This big bang as we know creates the universe.
Now if at the centre of every blackhole there is the singularity, and I believe there is a blackhole in most galaxies.. could there be a universe in each?
As you have noticed, I'm not a scientist.
At the centre of every supermassive blackhole there is a lump of mega compressed matter, compressed so hard it is all broken down into subatomic particles, I believe this is called a singularity. It is infinitely small, and infinitely heavy, and of course only gets heavier and more dense as time (outside of the blackhole of couse) goes on.
Eventually it will reach critical mass, and explode as a 'big bang' whether this takes place in the same universe as the black hole, or Dimension, I do not know enough about the physics of black holes to know. This big bang as we know creates the universe.
Now if at the centre of every blackhole there is the singularity, and I believe there is a blackhole in most galaxies.. could there be a universe in each?
As you have noticed, I'm not a scientist.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff