You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Interviewing top-notch physicists at the SteemSTEM / Utopian.io Meetup
There are so many scientific explanations or can l call it theories that i never subscribed to because the prof is baseless. I will like to ask Rocchi few for clarification.
It was said that the entire universe started as a hot dot which expanded spontaneously,an expansion called the Big Bang and later cooled the various forms of matters and antimatters it contained. Further processes resulted in the formation of the universe.
Now my question. Can this be proved?
Secondly, l believe matters ought to have been annihilated in the process that formed the early universe but we still have them in abundance,WHY?....
I will love to see his reaction to these questions.
Thanks for the opportunity.
We will ask your question on your behalf and report the answer. However, I can also answer that.
The Big Bang theory as a lot of consequences, and they have been observed today. Therefore, from the point of view of data, Standard Cosmology holds extremely. Of course, there are alternatives that are not excluded by data (yet?). We hence need more experiments to be able to put a check mark there.
So to clearly answer the question: data cannot proved that the big bang happened, but this theory consists in the best explanation for what we observe.
This question is not clear. I will try to answer in the way I understand it. But please come back to me if necessary. In the early universe, matter and antimatter constantly annihilated into each other. But there was a second reaction: matter-antimatter pairs were created from the vacuum. This happened in equilibrium. Then, for some reason we don't understand, there was slightly more matter than antimatter and with the expansion of the universe, antimatter almost disappeared.
Don't hesitate to ask more ^^
Thanks @lemouth for the response. yes I do believe that there isnt enough fact to hold the theory but little was gathered anyway and more is still on. I am just satisfied with your response, However, hearing from Rocchi wouldnt be bad as well.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD
Why is the research about the SEA DEPTH crawling, compared to the SPACE research that moves at rocket speed?
Waiting to hear from you guys. WAVING.......
Don't worry, your question will be asked even if I have an opinion on it ;)
I don't know details about sea depth research funding and status so that this is hard to me to answer anything useful, backed up by numbers. Therefore I prefer to skip. Apologies :)
Thanks @lemouth..