October 23rd, 2004, 02:46 PM
I have to say I have a hard time with the big bang theory, the idea the universe was created by one massive explosion of some giant mass of matter is a bit hard to fathom. Even if you can validate the theory you then have to ask why was this giant mass sitting in the middle of nothingness and where did it come from in the first place, guess that's why so many believe in some form of a god.
This was dealt with in the book Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. I'm sorry but this is as scientific an explanation as I can get for it right now. The book said that they put two beams of light into a particle accelerator until they collided, and when they hit each other, two types of matter began to appear out of nowhere: matter and antimatter. In the book, this was an experiment that proved the Big Band Theory.
I'll have to go look it up, it cited a source for this experiment.
I believe in the big bang theory. after watching a nova special on PBS a few weeks ago, they talked about the microwave background which is like a look into time of when the universe began expanding.
For me, I think the big bang theory is even more proof of a higher being. Something had to happen to kick it all off. And that excites me!
Let me start by saying that I do not know the names of the physicists involved.
I believe in the Big Bang Theory, sort of. I believe that there is a multivierse, of infinite size. As all of you know, if you have an infinite amount, you have an infinite possibility. Therefore in the infinite multiverse there are some universe's very similar to ours and some very different. I believe that when a singularity forms in the multiverse, a universe is born -- or exploded -- into existence. Obviously, when a singularity explodes there is an ungodly amount of energy released. This is enough energy to form a universe. I also believe that inter-universe travel is possible through wormholes and also intro-universe (is that a word, I'm too drunk to care right now) is also possible through wormholes.
God did not create the universe. Why? Because there is no god, and if there is I would piss on him (story for another day). Man creates god to explain what man can't. The Romans and Greeks started with many gods. As they began to understand nature, these gods began to decrease. We only need god to justify what happens before life, after death, and in the beginning. Once all of that is discovered, god will cease to exist.
Being a man of logic I find myself beating my head against a wall trying to explain logically my very existence.
If the big band theory holds true then the question remains where did the source of such large amounts of matter come from? If it simply always existed then logic would not hold true, something can't just be without a source or origin. Even the very space such matter existed in before the big bang would be in itself something that would have to be. Space may be a void but a void is something.
If the big bang theory is true and the source of all the matter in the universe originated from one point, and we can't explain where this original matter or even the space that holds it came from then I have to conclude I shouldn't even exist.
The only possible explanation leads to a paradox that can never be answered. I feel we are bound to the very principles of our thought process and that the answer to these questions is beyond our design. We have been given parameters to base all reality on that we have since grown to exceed, now we are left with questions that can not be answered.
If the Big Bang experiment is recreated, it can prove that matter can come from nothing. Nothing in this universe, perhaps it opens a hole to another universe.
I always loved Star Trek because they can just roam the universe, and they have it mapped out. But we don't have that luxury, we can't just zoom around the universe, we can only go so far. And space probes can go farther but take time to relay information. We are kind of limited in our exploration so far. It would be nice to travel to another star system and to gather matter that we can't find here so that we may study it and learn more about the universe.
November 1st, 2004, 09:10 PM
It possible I myself too believe in the big bang theory.But it makes me wonder what was there before that.What was it like?
One possible way matter could appear in the universe out of nothing.
Suppose a black hole is a form of worm hole like some believe, now lets say this worm hole is sucking in matter and somehow depositing it into a buddle inside another universe. When that buddle got to the point it could no longer maintain stability, it explodes populating an otherwise empty universe. The process would repeat itself again after millions or billions of years. It still would not explain the concept of the existence of space, but it might figure in on how matter just appeared from nowhere.
It would be like a vacuum sucking up matter until the vacuum bag could hold no more, pooof instant cosmic mess. The bag of course existing in another universe all together. Nothing ever lost, just moved from place to place.
Just a thought.
Stephen Hawking used the analogy of a bubble appearing in a boiling liquid as the fluid changes from liquid to gas phase to represent the big bang. One moment it is not there, the next moment it is…
One still has to accept the existence of another source of matter/energy beyond our perceived universe (either in time or space). I have no problem with that.
Black holes are like death, you can go through it but you can't come back to tell what it was like or what is on the other side. Perhaps one day, but not today.
As far as the traditional Big Bang Theory, I don't believe a word of it. But I like what chovy said. Too me, the Big Bang theory is concrete evidence that there is something or someone that set it all in motion. The mathmatical odds of the Big Bang making matter of nothing is quite unbeliveable. I cant think of who it is or what law it is, but one of sciences solid, believed-by-all laws states that matter can neither be destroyed or created, just transformed to something else.
2112, I too have read that experiment. But according to the above law, that is imposible. I highly doubt that matter appeared from some light. Remember, until the experiment is succesfully duplicated, it is nothing. Ever hear about the European lab who claimed they had sucsseful cold fusion? When asked to do it again, they couldn't, so nobody ever believed them. Did it really happen? Probably not, but there is that maybe, because cold fusion is beliveable. But matter being mysteriously created from light? I doubt it.
As far as the Big Biang goes, I believe it wasn't the random explosion everybody thought it was, but a series of events set in motion and carried out by an "Intelligent Designer". I don't have the book with me, but it gives this incredibly explanation and reason for the Big Bang. It uses math and science to just about prove the Big Bang theory, and it was told by a hardcore Christian! The book is A Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. I highly recommend the book, which covers the biggest objections to Christianity, including the Creation thing. That is what sold me on the Big Bang, despite my strong Christian faith. I'll try and get the actual text on here soon, but it gives, in my opinion, a strong foundation and argument for the Big Bang theory.
Thread has been split
You can find the 'Time' discussion here: Clicky!
Any comments, questions can be send to me, through PM: Clicky!; or of course email: HomoUniversalis@Gmail.com
We now return to your regular schedule.
Mr U
First of all I want to say that not only is there more than enough evidence for the big bang theory for me to believe it, but from some of the comments (as well as discussions I have had with others) it is obviously one of the most misunderstood theories as well.
The first point I would like to make is that it is impossible to describe what came before the big bang since neither space nor time existed prior to the big bang. This is a concept that is very difficult to comprhend exactly, but it negates the idea that the big bang had to have an origin, since the steady pace of time that we live in did not exist at prior to the big bang. The best evidence that I have seen of the big bang theory is the recently published (and increasingly detailed) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation maps. These images are of the burst of radiation that accompanied the big bang approximately 15 billion years ago. As you should well know, the deeper into space we look using more and more advanced technology, the further back in time we are looking as well (hence the term light year - if we look at a star 10 light years away, we are actually seeing it as it appeared 10 years ago). The cosmic background ratiation maps are being produced by looking at very deep space and 15 billion years ago.
As for the matter / antimatter experiment, it has been known for decades that a collision between gamma rays (very short wavelength electromagnetic radiation - the same stuff light is made from) will produce matter and antimatter, but this does not prove the existence of the big bang. In fact it is impossible to "prove" the big bang theory, but it is very possible to gather many seperate lines of evidence for it, as cosmologists have been seeking to do since it was first given scientific credibility by Hubble, and his discovery that the universe is expanding. (Unlike a God, whose existence has little evidence and many individual and contradictory interpretations, most of which is based on faith. However, it is also impossible to ultimately prove or disprove the existence of a God as well).
The theory goes that the big bang came about from the eruption of a singularity rather than from nothingness as many people interpret (which are also believed to exist in the centre of black holes). Although they can be mathematically defined, and their properties explored by extrapolating Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, it is difficult to observe a singularity, in part because like the cosmic background radiation, the singularity in the centre of a massive black hole is also shrouded by huge quantities of radiation, as the black hole consumes everything in its path. Also the gravitational pull of a black hole is so strong that light itself cannot escape, making it impossible to "see" a singularity by any conventional methods. I hope this clears up a few issues and provokes more interest and research into the subject.
To discuss this subject further, I'd love to hear from you. E-Mail me at lonequark@hotmail.com
Lonequark, Australia
Hey, welcome to the forum.
This is easy to understand, time being impossible to measure without the existence of matter. As I have argued countless times, time is a measurement. It not a physical object. So without something that produces measurable change time itself can not be measured. This concept appears to escape some people.The first point I would like to make is that it is impossible to describe what came before the big bang since neither space nor time existed prior to the big bang.
This sounds very much like something? Where did it come from? What is it's origin? Logic dictates we must have a beginning, but perhaps not an end.The theory goes that the big bang came about from the eruption of a singularity rather than from nothingness as many people interpret (which are also believed to exist in the centre of black holes). Although they can be mathematically defined, and their properties explored by extrapolating Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, it is difficult to observe a singularity, in part because like the cosmic background radiation, the singularity in the centre of a massive black hole is also shrouded by huge quantities of radiation, as the black hole consumes everything in its path. Also the gravitational pull of a black hole is so strong that light itself cannot escape, making it impossible to "see" a singularity by any conventional methods. I hope this clears up a few issues and provokes more interest and research into the subject.
February 3rd, 2005, 11:40 PM
The universe is a process, not an event. Big bang implies an event, and thus is a poor discriptor for a moving event horizon, which more aptly describes backgound temperature.
Three Roads to Quantum Gravity describes it better than I can....
It does seem to be the best we have for now. Still, it will go through revisions as more data is collected. But maybe we will never know for sure how it actually happened. We do know that the universe has been expanding and will continue to do so, and combined with other observations such as the background radiation, the evidence is pretty strong.
May 23rd, 2005, 05:18 PM
Arter reading the following I don't know how you can't give some open minded thought about the Big Bang as being a very good THEORY. Remember it is only a THEORY based on physics and scientific data we have discovered. Is there any PROOF that there is a GOD? What evidence that you can show us that proves by FACTS there is a GOD other than what you believe is true based upon scriptures written by man.Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
"In cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that describes the early development and shape of the universe. The central idea is that the theory of general relativity can be combined with the observations on the largest scales of galaxies receding from each other to extrapolate the conditions of the universe back or forward in time. A natural consequence of the Big Bang is that in the past the universe had a higher temperature and a higher density. The term "Big Bang" is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began—measured to be 13.7 billion (13.7 × 109) years ago—and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and evolution of the universe.
One consequence of the Big Bang is that the conditions of today's universe are different from the conditions in the past or in the future. From this model, George Gamow in 1948 was able to predict the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). The CMB was discovered in the 1960s and served as a confirmation of the Big Bang theory over its chief rival, the steady state theory."
I respect your right to have your 'beliefs" in anything but when facts are presented that show you something different then you should try to understand those facts before you condem them as false.
I think we could be for a rough ride here. The universe as we experience it is wholly created in our minds, based on measurements of our environment which is just structures of energy held within the same dimensions as ourselves. The objective universe is unknowable to us, and everything we experience is just the effect our environment has on our bodies and interpreted and processed in our brains.
The human brain is just a complicated structure of atoms exchanging charges of energy resulting in subjective experiences and concepts.
Objectively the idea that the universe came from a singularity is wrong even if it right. The singularity is a mental concept used to describe a subjective experience.
The idea that something has a beginning, an end, is a concept of the mind, and without human beings the universe needs no explanation, since explanation itself is a human creation.
Maybe our limited ape-like brains are to blame, maybe it's a by-product of our mental mechanisms, because the universe is not human and will not bend to our subjective experiences.
Maybe there was nothing before the singularity and nothing is required for the universe to have started. Maybe we just think there should be because of our imperfect perception of our environment.
You have the right to believe in a invisible thing that you think exists based on the writings of humans with the brains you so well stated.
I, on the other hand, believe that science has shown us undisputed facts that also come from the same brains of humans.
Which one is right is of no concern for I also can respect others points of view for they are entilted to think anyway they want to get through life. Just don't push your point of view down my throat and force me to believe something I don't believe in order to know you.
I have friends that are in the clergy and we have a very close relationship and always are debating about things as this. We always end up having a bottle of wine while doing our discussions and when we are through we are still great friends and always will be because we respect each others rights to agreee to disagree about life and the cosmos.
The big bang has a lot of evidence to support it. COsmic Microwave background radition, predicted hydrogen to helium ratio. The fact that it is expanding in all directions shows it came from one spot. How else do you explain it. Those that bring up God crack me up. Where did God come from? Why is it so hard to believe the universe or prior universes could have always been here but so easy to believe that God has alays been and always will be. If there is a God, He is irrelevent because the universe does't need him to do what it has done. Science can explain it better than some super being who does nothing more than helping teams win the superbowl, as some players say that god was on our side, while he lets thousands die in a tsunami. By the way it is pretty much proven that particle pop into and out of existence in the vacuum of space all the time.
I wonder what facts you might consider to be undisputed. Furthermore, do you consider the conclusions of science based on those "facts" to be undisputed?
The big bang has support based on what we know, it appears to be possible and the evidence supports it. The problem still is how and why? What caused the big bang, what is the source of the matter that was the basis of the big bang? Where did it all start, and then where did that start start. It's a paradox of the mind, one we can't even begin to answer. We look at what we think is happening and make assumptions about what happened. In the end we don't have the slightest clue if our facts are correct or not, a theory is just a guess at what might have been. A theory to me with a paradox attached is not a theory at all. It stands up until you ask that one more question and then it falls on it's face. Now if you can tie a bunch of theories together to support each other, then you might have something.
Start at the beginning, what is the source of the matter and energy that existed before the big bang, better still what is the source of the very void that held it. Some might call it the vacuum of space. So many questions, with no real answers. We are incapable of understanding the true nature of the universe. It is designed to keep us trapped in our thoughts.
August 10th, 2005, 11:03 AM
In the world of science, I’m a layman. I do, however, have a strong conviction that science and the scientific method can be, with the guiding light of love and compassion, humankind’s saviour. It is a beautiful process which has no cultural, ethnic, religious or political boundaries. I’m not qualified to dispute the findings of the world’s vast body of scientific researchers, and certainly have not the slightest inclination to do so. One must recognise that when a true scientist states that such-and–such-is-so, what they mean is that to the best of current knowledge it appears to be so, although further research may show that it isn’t exactly so.
Do I, then, believe in the big bang theory? Well, it’s a great credit to the scientific approach that it’s still referred to as a theory, in view of the tremendous weight of scientific evidence. So, yes, I accept it as a ‘provisional’ truth, in the same way that I accept that chlorinated water is a good idea. In each case, I personally, have no way proving the case.
With regard to the origins of the universe, the fact of its very existence, and the further fact of our own cognizance of it: whatever conclusions we prefer to adhere to it all remains a magnificent wonder which, I suspect, will forever be beyond the total grasp of science.
Can you name a single theory in all of physics that does not "have a paradox attached"? I think that you have just ruled all theories of physics out of existence.
Just shows you how much we have to learnCan you name a single theory in all of physics that does not "have a paradox attached"? I think that you have just ruled all theories of physics out of existence.
[quote="(In)Sanity"]It also shows that you must revist your understanding of the concept of a theory, as you seem to be defining it out of meaningfulness.Just shows you how much we have to learn
Boyle's Law.
-Laws of Thermodynamics
-Laws of Motion
Wallaby, I think Hermes' silence is him wondering if he can get away with saying "But those are Laws. I asked you for theories."
Well, Hermes, you can't ...... get away it.
Hi Hermes. I and perhaps Wallaby are still awaiting your repsonse to the naming of several physical theories that do not have a paradox attached.
Still waiting.
LOL,
How about chaos theory. It destroys any paradox before it can exist. It is after all chaos
Hi All, My first post and I am a novice, but very curious may I ask a simple question?
At the time of the BB did space exist or was it a result of the BB, sorry to be so naive
The space and time that are all around us are the result of the Big Bang. The Universe does not expand into an empty void, it creates the void with it as it expands. For a supposed novice, you've asked a very clever question!
The Big Bang is not in dispute despite InSanity's "disbelief". What we do know is that the Universe is expanding, that it was much smaller in the past, that if you follow Einstein's equations you can see that the Universe is derived from a singularity - ie a place where all the matter of the Universe was in one place.
This is what the Big Bang is - the expansion and inflation of all the matter, energy, space and time that we see in the Universe from a single point. Not "A large amount of matter suddenly exploding".
Where did the singularity come from? We don't know. Something called M-Theory, I believe, has the Universe coming out of a coming together of ripples in two World-Sheets (derived from String Theory) - but those world sheets operate in a different Universe (or Multiverse maybe) outside the confines of our own space / time continuum.
The biggest problem facing the theorists as far as I can tell is that the reason Einstein's theories break down at the singularity is because it involves infinite density. As far as I can see this is not going to be resolved by continuing to talk as if the singularity at the Big Bang and also at the centre of Black Holes in the extant Universe, actually consists of a mathematically impossible concept, but the scientists do all the same.
Overcome by an irresistible wave of pedantic desire Ophiolite pondered that (In)Sanity's disbelief sounded very much as if he was disputing it.
In more sober tones Ophiolite also reflected on the increasing contortions of the Big Bang theory that were required to match observations, comparing them in his mind with the trauma and contortions of geologists in the period leading up to the emergence of plate tectonics.
But then, what did Ophiolite know of cosmology and advanced particle physics. Damned little. Best to hit the cancel button then.......
Oh, damn. It didn't say Cancel, it said Submit.
Thank you Silas, That is in line with my own thinking, i.e. space being created by the BB. I now have to learn the terms that are used on this forum before I venture another posting.
The Universe was smaller and hotter in the past, about that there can be no doubt. I'm not sure what twisting and turning you're talking about, Ophiolite. Even if the Universe expansion (as it now appears) is accelerating, implying some repulsive force, does not take away the basic facts of galactic redshift (everything is flying apart) coupled with the microwave background radiation (all the matter in the Universe is not energetic enough to have raised the temperature of the whole to three degrees absolute, therefore the temperature of the Universe must have cooled down to that level from much higher in the past).
How the Big Bang came to be is a matter of speculation and hypothesising, but unless everything was in one concentrated spot to begin with the Universe would not look the way it does today, and none of the measurements (which are now getting to the accuracy of the hundreds of millions of years - when I was young the Universe was "anything from 10 to 20 billion years old" - now the accepted figure is 13.7 billion years old) would make any sense.
That is what I meant by "The Big Bang Theory is not in dispute". Hawking avoids the singularity by postulating that the other dimensions come into play, other theorists talk about multiverses. We are clearly as far from a Grand Unified Theory as ever. But the Universe has expanded and cooled from concentrated and very very hot beginnings.
(But isn't it nice, Ophiolite, not to be arguing with the ignorant, the misled, and the delusional, for once?)
But Silas, its so much easier to handle them without thinking. If I want to make my point with you I shall actually have to check some facts and think. Oh the pain! Delusional opponents are too often underrated. :wink:
October 6th, 2005, 06:38 PM
First of all, the big bang explains a physical process by which all of matter, space and time came into being so there is no giant mass or even a nothingness in which it sits to explain. I am not sure there is even a "before" at all to think about. Nevertheless, for this event to occur there were conditions which we are required to presuppose, leaving us free to ask the why and wherefore that such conditions existed.
On the other hand, the idea of God suffers from the same logical problem, for if God is the answer to the questions concerning the conditions we spoke of then we can also ask the same why and wherefore questions about God. The simple fact of the the matter is that logic can never find a beginning. By its very nature it only goes from one truth to another or one supposition to another. The starting point is an axiom, postulate or assumption. And these we may choose for ourselves with complete freedom, with the rational proviso that logic thereafter leads to conclusions which match our experiences.
A scientific approach adds another rule, Occam's razor, that we choose a minimum number of axioms in order to match our experiences in this way. Yet it is a mistake to presume that this provides any superiority of science over theology. There are efforts in theology which abide by this rule and without the need of the precision found in science it is actually easier to start with fewer axioms. There is also the matter of, which experiences you seek agreement on first, and here is the real root of the conflict between science and theology. For in science and particularly physics it is first and exclusively the quantitative results of repeatable measurements that is to be matched. Whereas in theology, it is the more profound (life changing) and very much less precise experiences of human life which are given priority. The precision and repeatability of the scientific approach holds such a great deal appeal for many, that they are willing to overlook its serious limitations. Restricting human experience to repeatable measured quantities is quite a limitation indeed.
Science therefore explains a great deal about the way things happen in the world and gives us the opportunity to manipuate and control them. But it does not address the questions of why, or of meaning, or what is of value, or the way to fulfillment. These are the questions which theology and philosophy are aimed at. The mathematical conditions for the big bang may satisfy our equations, but are quite empty of meaning, for the vast majority of people. The idea of God creating the world for the purpose of making a relationship between Him and the living things in this world, does a much better job on that score.
In conclusion, I would say that looking at anything from a single point of view produces an image which is flat and sterile. To see the fullness of life in all its complexity and dynamism requires multiple points of view.
I don't believe that scientists can accurately predict the age of universe or will ever be able to do it. The big bang theory is just that, a theory, it's not absolute fact. However, I do believe that the big bang is more logical than the biblical theory that suggests 'God' created the universe in 7 days. I, for one, believe that there had to be some kind of creator behind the origin of the universe...who or what that creator is is beyond me, but trying to explain it would only cause me to loose hours of sleep, deeply searching for the answer to a question that I could never really know.
Most of you will probably reply with"well if there's a creator, then who created the creator?" It's hard for us, as mere humans to grasp the concept of immortality because we live in a physical realm where our level of understanding is limited to what we can see, feel, smell, hear and taste. We're restricted to time and space so why overlook the possibility of a creator who exists outside of time(eternally)? Scientists can only form theories, based on things that they can measure and test. If there truly is a God, it would be impossible to proove it using scientific methods.
I accept evolution and natural selection theories cause it's the most logical explination for life on this planet and I'm convinced. But there are too many flaws in the Big bang theory, at this point in time for me to accept it as a fact.
October 7th, 2005, 04:54 AM
I agree 100%In conclusion I would say that looking at anything from a single point of view produces an image which is flat and sterile. To see the fulness of life in all its complexity and dynamism requires multiple points of view.
I think people should be more openminded and willing to listen to others who have views that aren't completely the same as theirs. On other message boards i've posted on, cursing and petty name calling between deists and atheists is usually what happens when these topics come up. Hopefully we can repsect each others opinions here.
I'm still going with my simulation theory.
All of the unknowns are not beyond logic or reason or form a paradox because the unknowns are just not built in to the simulation. Outside the simulation life exists that doesn't resemble the laws of physics. The laws of physics are only part of the simulation and not part of that outside of it. So, everything we know is part of our simulation and we are in turn part of it. The big bang being the start of the simulation.
any life outside the universe would base their simulation on their universe, after all it works. so the universe is a simulation, where did the creators come from etc. we run into a neverending wall.
the only problem that lies with the big bang for me is of course where did the energy come from, the Universe is has thermodynamics so if no energy within this universe can be created or destroyed then the universe could not be created out of thin air. (figure of speech only)
hmm where would we get a power source for something like the universe?
Again back to the simulation.hmm where would we get a power source for something like the universe?
You can drop as many virtual nukes as you want in a simulation and it never matters. It doesn't take more power. They can be as big as needed. Energy becomes irrelevant within the simulation itself. You could even go so far as to say the simulation changes with other parts of itself. As the "people" in the simulation who are just simulations in themselves want more information about smaller and smaller things the simulation just adds what is needed. It would never need to simulate that outside of our scope, just always have the right answer when we go looking.
but what would power the simulation?
where might this energy come from?
another universe perhaps?
eventually if we reach a real universe we approach the same problems we're looking at now.
Well no, that's the point. We are stuck with thinking of everything based on the laws we know. It's impossible for us to really imagine something totally different. Perhaps where mass doesn't exist and energy isn't consumed. We assume everything based on the laws we are presented. Think way way outside the box. Even at that I'm not sure we could grasp what could be.
if we base everything on the laws we know then if we were to create a universe then it would be based on our laws would they not.
yes i know that does not nessisarily mean they would but there must be a source for those beings or whatever you wish to call them some origin of it. again the boundry.
(In)Sanity, I think you would be interested in reading a book by Daniel F.Galouye, Counterfeit World (also published as Simulacron, I think). He explores the universe as simulation idea. I haven't read it since it was published in 1964 or 1965, but the fact that I recall it over this many decades suggests that it made a very favourable impression. [SkinWalker, your anthropological interests might be aroused by his Dark Universe, in which he explores the character of a troglodyte society who live in total darkness.]
Just pretend for a second that these beings as you call them are actually not derived from matter. They exist in a state that we can't even define. They don't need power, they don't need food or energy to exist. Perhaps they exist as some form of pure light. In any event they create a simulation using technology that requires no power. Perhaps they are interested in the concept of boundaries and paradoxes as they just don't exist in their world. The simulation they create has a set of laws that govern how each component will interact with other components. We have started to know these as the "laws of physics". To start their simulation they drop this big chuck of matter in the middle of nothingness. Nothingness can exist in a simulation. Things can also just appear out of nothingness.
This chunk of matter is tossed in the simulation and the laws they have imposed on the simulation itself cause it to explode in what we like to call "the big bang". From then on it's just history. The laws keep applying themselves until we reach the here and now. Now to these beings in their totally different existence this entire simulation is running very very fast, billions of years to us may just be minutes to them. They watch and record all the changes that occur and what complex interactions happen and how the simulator itself starts to act and think primitive thoughts (that would be me) and tries to reason it's very existence. These beings may also find it interesting to introduce subtle changes once in a while to see how things turn out. They also like to watch the complex interactions and how they form primitive thoughts. One odd thing that happens is that the simulation starts to create simulations within itself. It starts to try to figure out it's very origins. Working as trillions of tiny processes, each introducing new questions and ideas to attempt to solve the puzzle of why it exists.
The simulation however is blind to the true nature of it's existence, it can't see those that created it or interact with them. It forever goes on searching for answers that it will never find.
if a being was not made of matter or energy then it would not have a concept of it then would it.
if there was matter in it's universe then there would have been a source or origen and we arrive back a square 1.
if we did not have our sense of sight then we would not have invented television or colours for clothing because we would not know such things exist.
these beings would not have a concept of matter as they have no use for it and no idea of its existence, they are blind to it.
Its me again, I feel like a kid on his first day at School, I hope I don’t annoy you all but I have another thought I would like to post:
To me it seems that we can have not the faintest concept of any thing that may be in more than 4 dimensions and we can never know, also the Math and physics etc that we are familiar with may only exist locally or at the best in this Universe and does not necessarily apply elsewhere in time or space so is it not more than probable that there are many Universe and Dimensions?? any theory is possible.
Respectfully Die Fledermaus :?
Why is that? What is wrong with the way scientists estimate the age?
I think here you are showing a bit of your misconceptions about what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory isn't just some "hey, maybe it happened this way" idea. It's an explanation of data that has a lot of support - the Big Bang Theory indeed does have a lot of support and a lot of evidence. The background radiation, the redshift, matter distribution and ratios, and so on.The big bang theory is just that, a theory, it's not absolute fact.
I agree that the Big Bang is more logical, but you can't really compare the two. One is a scientific theory, and one is a belief taken on faith.However, I do believe that the big bang is more logical than the biblical theory that suggests 'God' created the universe in 7 days. I, for one, believe that there had to be some kind of creator behind the origin of the universe...who or what that creator is is beyond me, but trying to explain it would only cause me to loose hours of sleep, deeply searching for the answer to a question that I could never really know.
Who's overlooking it? It's just not a part of science, so I personally don't care about it.Most of you will probably reply with"well if there's a creator, then who created the creator?" It's hard for us, as mere humans to grasp the concept of immortality because we live in a physical realm where our level of understanding is limited to what we can see, feel, smell, hear and taste. We're restricted to time and space so why overlook the possibility of a creator who exists outside of time(eternally)?
Exactly right, on both counts. But why should we care about things that we can't measure or test? That just means they may as well not exist (or, that they don't exist)Scientists can only form theories, based on things that they can measure and test. If there truly is a God, it would be impossible to proove it using scientific methods.
Which flaws make it hard to accept?But there are too many flaws in the Big bang theory, at this point in time for me to accept it as a fact.
With the evidence that we see before us (eg., the microwave background radiation) it would appear that the big bang theory is the simplest explanation which fits all the data.
I'll look at anything with an open, yet critical, mind and if another simpler theory comes along which fits all the known data, it stands a good chance of getting my support... lol
JM
I believe in the theory too. That should be the simplest way of explaining it. All evidence seem to lead to that. Everything seems so logical, but scientists can only tell us what happened after a few milliseconds or nanoseconds after the 'beginning'. That's why the theory seems incomplete. If only they new why it happened at all... as quoted from Stephen Hawking, in A Brief History of Time, 'Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?'
If we know the answer, 'it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason."
Or merely the first step (or the next step, at least) in reaching the ultimate truth.
Mike NS comment
The BB got its start with the Lemaitrae idea amongst others of an expanding universe.
This could have been based on the Slipher redshift observations or it could have been coincidental. Later Hubble and Humason confirmed the redshift data and established a relation to distance.
These observations implied that we were centrally located in the universe and that it was expanding. Since this central location brought back the idea of the geocentric theory and the ifinitesimal possibility of being central, this had to be replaced. So the 'expansion of space' was subjectively developed to remove us from the central location by eliminating just one center.
All the rest of the evidence was subjectively developed.
Then came the CMBR that supposedly clinched the BB concept.
I have refuted the idea of the EoS with my post on the EoLWs. My SSU does not raise as many questions as the BB does.
I take the Big Bang to be fact, not something to believe or disbelieve.
To Jim Colyer
Then you believe in the 'creation theory'?
Mike NS
I believe that god may exist because someone ust have started everything.. but than the problem is who created god?
Why did something necessarily have to "start" the universe? Moving the mystery to God just pushes it a step back but solves nothing. People try to get around it by defining God as that which requires no cause, but why can't we simply say, with equal validity, that the universe requires no cause?I believe that god may exist because someone ust have started everything.. but than the problem is who created god?
At least we all KNOW that there's a universe. It's a lot easier to accept that fact than to push the mystery to something that may or may not even exist.
One might look for certain kinds of evidence based upon a subjective predjudice, but I find it difficult to accept that evidence can be subjectively developed. The evidence is either valid or invalid; it either supports, undermines, or is neutral towards a given theory. Are you suggesting the evidence has been 'constructed' in some way?
Well, I think you have disagreed with the expansion of space, but the objections you have raised and the minimal justiifcation you have provided for them can hardly be called a refutation.
Ophiolite quote
One might look for certain kinds of evidence based upon a subjective predjudice, but I find it difficult to accept that evidence can be subjectively developed. The evidence is either valid or invalid; it either supports, undermines, or is neutral towards a given theory. Are you suggesting the evidence has been 'constructed' in some way?
reply
Yes. The 'expansion of space' has been constructed to replace the Dopplerian redshift implications. As I have said, Doppler implied that we were in the center of an expanding universe. This is a virtual impossibility.
Mike NS
latehorn quote
I believe that god may exist because someone ust have started everything.. but than the problem is who created god?
reply
If you believe in the 'Laws of Conservation', they imply that there was no beginning or end for the 'physical' universe.
It would be more appropriate tio say, where did the 'stem cells' come from?
If these cells can survive in space at the temperature of 3K, than you can say that they also existed like the physical counterpart.
So I am waiting to see if there will be an experiment to see if these cells can survive in a dormant state in the intergalactic space.
Mike NS
October 29th, 2006, 08:47 AM
You are right.
That god was a catholic preist with a PhD. His name was Georges Lemaitrae and he came up with the idea of an 'expanding universe'. Probably based on the Slipher redshift observations.
After Hubble released his observations, all the scientists than embraced the idea of his but discarded the primeval atom. Ha ha.
Of course they had to discard the Dopplerian redshifts also for their own idea of an 'expanding space' as the cause of the cosmological redshifts.
Thus the expanding baloon universe was created. Ha ha.
NS
Big Bang, cyclic, steady state or divine creation?
There is evidence for and against each of them, at the moment most seem to be trying to prove the big bang, so maybe evidence against big bang is 'discarded' or evidence for the others is not actively sought.
Who knows?
mega; somethings wrong. your thought on BB, is correct.
mike ns; LeMaitre sole purpose of the time 1927, was to show a connection of science and religion. he was fascinated with science, but wanted to remain a catholic priest. his papers, only indicated the Bang (no mention of expansion). Hubble, the first prominent person, in 1929, suggested his telescope findings were of an expanding universe, knowing full well it would compliment LeMaitre's thought. it was suggested in that period, the findings of Hubble, were his concept of what was view and for reason, the opposite was, as likely, or neither. that is the results were interpretations of a finding. the BB however got legs and into the text books. since it infers creation, its legs grew.
i have no problem with the word God, or its meaning to most all people of all faiths. maybe God is something with in the human spirit and requires no material meaning. since i do think this universe has also existed and have no problem with the word, always, likewise God as well has just simply always.
you do know, you all brought this thread back from a year's absence?
I'm not sure I understand you, my previous post was merely an unbiased view of all the theories, in which I did not express a leaning for or against any of them.
My personal opinion is that the universe is only 15billion years old if measured at the rate time elapses today. I think that when all the mass was together then like a singularity, time passed infinitly slower. I have been told this is crap, but without a satisfactory explanation I'm gonna keep it a while longer. It's my 'exponential time' theory. 8)
i agree with this post, as worded. this is not likely to happen that often. i feel your thought something may be discarded to prove another is a prime problem in theoretical science.
really don't have a problem with your next one. you left a door open to other theory and even used "what I've been taught". i think your wrong about the time, but my door is open a bit, just not to BB. we see the about the 15 BY, 1/2 each direction, but i don't see cause for anything not being beyond and quite the contrary. logic still says, if we were at that distant point we observe as was then, we would from there see about what we see from here, in all direction and be in a galaxy, pretty much like our own.
One of the things about really good scientists is that if they come up with a theory but then later discover it's crap they'll say so. A good scientist will always try to disprove as well as prove their own theories, when they can do one and not the other then they make progress. If they hide one set of results they are deluding themselves, they are then technically lying and are usually caught out.
Yeah I know my theory is probably wrong but for me it pushes the problem of where it all started so far back I don't need to think about it!
And where is the universe going? well again since it's likely to see me out and be around for some time longer I don't need to worry about that either! :wink:
.....One of the things about really good scientists is that if they come up with a theory but then later discover it's crap they'll say so. A good scientist will always try to disprove as well as prove their own theories, when they can do one and not the other then they make progress. If they hide one set of results they are deluding themselves, they are then technically lying and are usually caught out.
think a description of Einstein, in there someplace. he questioned his own thoughts and spent much of his life stuck on what he already had postulated.
Yeah I know my theory is probably wrong but for me it pushes the problem of where it all started so far back I don't need to think about it!
thats what started BB, need for a beginning point. that was my first problem and will remain so, until i figure why something has to have a beginning. really nothing does have a beginning, its all the results of other stuff joining or separating to end, the stuff constant and reforms. since its the nature of what we know, seems logical would hold true in all things.
suppose there are much better things to worry about, but since we got to this point, may be worth while to follow up. the results could be evading some natural event we all know is in mankind's path.
And where is the universe going? well again since it's likely to see me out and be around for some time longer I don't need to worry about that either! :wink:
You've given me an idea!!!
Maybe...
Once upon a time there were all these little strings of energy (not matter), which over time began to join together, eventually critical mass and BOOM! the big bang - there are many more of these strings floating around but they are what makes up dark matter!
Well?
not going there; your search for a beginning is overwhelming you mind.
dark matter (with mass) is an interesting subject, but will hold off for the correct thread.
bogie, seems to think two or more forms of creation, may be involved and is trying to link BB as an area effect, i think. i just don't see a need for it.
Not exactly. I don't think there was any creation; I think the universe has always existed. Now as for big bangs, I believe!
It is just that my conclusion is that big bangs come from big crunches; probably because I am uncomfortable with space-time beginning with a singularity. The singularity is a perscription for an infinitely dense, zero volume universe that somehow contained all of the matter and energy and the ability to inflate at super luminal speeds in a few picoseconds.
Or perhaps a singularity is a gateway to another universe where all the matter goes. Perhaps the universe has two domains to exist in, this one has positive time, the other negative time so it just keeps bouncing from one domain to another. Or maybe this is all crap.
i hear you. maybe, i consider some galaxy form, from a collapsing of matter, some how into a flat unit. i would be hard pressed to think more than one could form from that one action. i do think in either theory of galaxy formation, there should be a lot of lose matter, even stars with systems, that in time join a galaxy, probably dwarfs and again it time joinNot exactly. I don't think there was any creation; I think the universe has always existed. Now as for big bangs, I believe!
It is just that my conclusion is that big bangs come from big crunches; probably because I am uncomfortable with space-time beginning with a singularity. The singularity is a perscription for an infinitely dense, zero volume universe that somehow contained all of the matter and energy and the ability to inflate at super luminal speeds in a few picoseconds.
other larger units. that crunch and yours may be the same with, probable differing results. my wording (area event) would seem to apply to what i take from your view.
i am having a real problem with gravity, in all this and either the theory of gravity or the formation of anything will need changing.
Not just that one action, each action. I mean that the universe is infinite, has always existed, has infinite matter and energy, and forms big crunches and big bangs all over the place all of time. At any given time there are an infinite number of big crunches and big bangs, and ours is only one of them.Yes, maybe you do see what I mean about the big bang coming from a big crunch. Once the crunch becomes a bang, then you have an expanding visible universe like ours beginnning to form. Our expanding universe plays out over billions and billions of years, but it is just one of the bangs.i do think in either theory of galaxy formation, there should be a lot of lose matter, even stars with systems, that in time join a galaxy, probably dwarfs and again it time join
other larger units. that crunch and yours may be the same with, probable differing results. my wording (area event) would seem to apply to what i take from your view.
Like I said, I conclude that in an infinite universe there would be an infinite number of bangs playing out at any given time.So you didn't like my very first thread on the "cause of gravity"?
i am having a real problem with gravity, in all this and either the theory of gravity or the formation of anything will need changing.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-c...vity-4064t.php
seems were saying the same thing in different ways. i like formation, you like crunch.
on size; if the universe is the only unit in space, you are probably correct.
if it is part of something (10 differing possibilities) then it must have a limit, to allow those other somethings. however the size could be very, very large (2-3-1000 trillion light years across), but still with limits and no need, still a factor.
I'll check out your thread on gravity, but i must have read it. i did just reply to you on light, with questions. i don't feel light is diminished, but that for cause, appears to...
I like starting my thoughts on the big bang from the evidence first, then working backwards to the conclusions.
The speed of light is constant. It always travells the same speed.
If a fighter jet is flying at the speed of sound, and fires a bullet which is accelerated to a static speed of mach 1, the bullet will initially fly out the barell at mach 2 compared to the ground. If the same gun is on a plane flying mach 2, the bullet will be Mach 3 on barell exit.
If a torch is shone out the front of a spacecraft on the launchpad the lightbeam flys out at the speed of light (C)
Put that spacecraft into a few thousand km/hr escape trajectory, the light is still travelling at C
push the Spacecraft right up to 90% of C, the light still travels at C
Light is a wave, just like when an ambulance (or jet etc) zooms past you, the sound at the front is higher pitched than the sound behind the moving vehicle, this is because the sound waves are travelling at the same speed in front and behind the vehicle, however the waves are effected by being closer together at the front of the moving object and further apart behind.
Redshift is the same effect just with light. Red is behind, Blue is in front. Something going toward you is blueish, something going away is redish.
Generally most objects outside our local group of galaxies are all moving away from us. This either means we are the centre of the universe and the universe is expanding, or it means we are out amongst the "not centre of the universe" and everything is expanding :P. However however which way you look at it, everythings expanding.
If the universe is bigger now than when you started reading this thread, just reverse time for a bit... a bit more... right till you can't go any further... yep if it's getting bigger, that means it once had to be smaller. and if that is the case, it can't be "Forever Infinity Years Old". because if you go back, at some point something which is getting bigger, was once so small it was nothing.
Finally it has been said that the expansion is actually speeding up and not slowing down, meaning that gravity shouldn't be able to reverse the expantion into a contraction (assuming the acceleration is true, and that it keeps on going at it's current rate)
It's like a car driving out of new york toward Cleveland... if it keeps acellerating toward the west, if you assume it will keep doing that, it will burl through Cleveland and head on toward Seattle at high speed. Not slow down and then go in reverse back to NYC. Remembering this is a natural process and not something driven by a random car driver.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...295/5564/2341b
So using this information I would conclude for myself that the universe had a distinctave start, and may not have a distinct end. (start as in beginning - before which it didn't exist or existed as a single point ("Everywhere" was "in one place") and end as in final moments when it goes back to being nowhere/nothing)
Thus Start was when "everywhere" was "in one place" and the future is an ever-expanding universe for the rest of time passing which needn't ever stop. It's like a ray of light from the sun. It has a start point, but never has to actually stop.
I like this kind of post because it puts science into plain English and uses examples to convey ideas. To this point you have expressed pretty clearly the concepts that are behind Big Bang Theory.This is a very clear way to describe the implications of BBT; BBT implies a singularity that was like you describe it, a point that was the universe.So using this information I would conclude for myself that the universe had a distinctave start, and may not have a distinct end. (start as in beginning - before which it didn't exist or existed as a single point ("Everywhere" was "in one place") and end as in final moments when it goes back to being nowhere/nothing).
Your conclusion is in line with theory, and you yourself have found BBT to be adequate to explain what that best consensus believes is reality.Do you ever wonder about how a singularity could come about? Do you wonder if that zero volume point of infinite density that was the universe before the big bang actually existed or if it was only the best we can conclude from the evidence? Does it matter to you that the singularity is just a conclusion? Could other conclusions be drawn from the same evidence? Could one draw other conclusions that wouldn’t require a singularity of infinite density and zero volume? Do you think you have it nailed and so you can go on to other less certain circumstances without a doubt that the universe started like you have concluded?
Thus Start was when "everywhere" was "in one place" and the future is an ever-expanding universe for the rest of time passing which needn't ever stop. It's like a ray of light from the sun. It has a start point, but never has to actually stop.
I’m not so sure.
One could conclude that a point of zero volume and infinite density is impossible under any conditions. If one concludes that, then the beginning that you embrace is back up for discussion.
Let’s discuss another possibility. Why couldn’t one conclude that a big crunch preceded the big bang and that the big crunch took place in space that didn’t need to be created because it was just there?
I guess it is possible that a big crunch did happen before 'our' big bang that started the universe we know, however due to the accellerating expansion theory, I would think it unlikley that a big crunch would ever happen *again*. and if it won't happen now, why should it have happened before?
I tend not to delve too much into *pre-big-bang* theory too much, and I understand that that does actually mean that my understanding of the big bang can't rule out the concept of a "god". however it does rule out the literal christian biblical god (6000 year one).
Some people might call me either agnostic or deist in that case, but Im pretty happy with what I understand to be the combined theories of Big Bang and Accelerating Expansion. (distinct start point, no real ending point).
now Multiverse theory I have considered a little, but certainly don't have enough understanding (or possibly evidence) to draw my own convictions about such a thing. Big Bang theory however seems to work quite well in my mind (and as such the circa 13.7 billion year old universe also.)
The bang from a crunch and the accelerating expansion are part of my own cosmology, and yet I have no problem seeing how it could be likely that there could be other crunch bangs.
If it is possible and not too far out to conclude a big crunch in space that was already there, why couldn’t space be infinite and the matter/energy to form other crunches be present beyond the arena that formed our big crunch?Nobody knows who you are. Not delving into it is the same as accepting it as fact, and by the way, there is nothing wrong with that. It just means that you are faced with the imponderables of the singularity without any alternatives to ponder,
I tend not to delve too much into *pre-big-bang* theory
Actually the discussion of God and Cosmology are two completely different subjects. There is no cosmology that can prove there is no God, and there is no proof of God that would be universally accepted. That is for a different forum I think.and I understand that that does actually mean that my understanding of the big bang can't rule out the concept of a "god". However it does rule out the literal Christian biblical god (6000 year one).
I don’t want to be an influence in your thinking that would upset a nice neat picture that you are happy with. I have no proof that my ideas are any better than yours.Some people might call me either agnostic or deist in that case, but Im pretty happy with what I understand to be the combined theories of Big Bang and Accelerating Expansion. (distinct start point, no real ending point).My personal cosmology is comfortable with a big bang 13.7 billion years ago and I like and use the evidence of expansion and accelerating expansion. And yet I see the big bang as a beginning of our own home crunch/bang and at the same time consider the possibilities of similar crunch bangs elsewhere.
Now multi-verse theory I have considered a little, but certainly don't have enough understanding (or possibly evidence) to draw my own convictions about such a thing. Big Bang theory however seems to work quite well in my mind (and as such the circa 13.7 billion year old universe also.)
Have you thought about entropy? One thing I like about my view is the thought that the universe has always existed. Crunch/bangs occur here and there, now and then across the infinite greater universe, and entropy is defeated. New fresh expanding bangs happen all the time. If the life generated within an expanding bang is common to all bangs, then life will be happening forever.
I like that for some reason.
not delving into it means I havn't yet formed an opinion of the idea of "what happened before the big bang". Thus I find it slightly irrelevant trying to argue what I believe, when I actually don't have an opinion of that subject, so I tend to leave it alone and just observe other people's opinion. I tend to like to work from the evidence backwards, and so far all "pre-big-bang" theories havn't provided much evidence beyond "it seems reasonable that it's a natural process", which is a rather statement of the obvious. Of course it's a natural process, that's like saying "The existance of reality is real". That is indeed the definition of the word. the beginning of the universe is the beginning of natural processes. Of course it is a natural processNobody knows who you are. Not delving into it is the same as accepting it as fact, and by the way, there is nothing wrong with that. It just means that you are faced with the imponderables of the singularity without any alternatives to ponder,
Having delved into a bit and having formed an opinion of my own, when you do delve a bit, for comparison here are my negative conclusions:not delving into it means I havn't yet formed an opinion of the idea of "what happened before the big bang". Thus I find it slightly irrelevant trying to argue what I believe, when I actually don't have an opinion of that subject, so I tend to leave it alone and just observe other people's opinion. ...
Of course it is a natural process
I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I’m just saying it didn’t happen the way you think it did. There was no infinitely dense zero volume singularity that appeared from nowhere, burst into to the entire universe all at once, creating space and starting time in the same instant that it expanded from zero volume into the homogeneous and isotropic universe that has no edge and yet expands faster and faster into the space that it creates as it goes until it is too dispersed to generate the heat necessary to support life and eventually heat itself will die.
I love saying that but it proves nothing. That is the negative conclusion to accompany the positive conclusions in my earlier posts about the infinite universe.
we observe that most of the forms of matter that we see in the universe -stars galaxies black holes....are all radiating energy in some or the other form.-as visible light,infrared,radio waves,X-rays etc etc...
By einteins equation of mass energy equivalence E=mc^2 we can conclude that most of the matter is being converted into into energy form?Can it be that finally we will have all the matters perish and we will be left only with an enrgy dominant universe?
You could answer that question by yourself, look up nuclear fusion, and looking at the life cycle of stars that are less than 1 solar mass.we observe that most of the forms of matter that we see in the universe -stars galaxies black holes....are all radiating energy in some or the other form.-as visible light,infrared,radio waves,X-rays etc etc...
By einteins equation of mass energy equivalence E=mc^2 we can conclude that most of the matter is being converted into into energy form?Can it be that finally we will have all the matters perish and we will be left only with an enrgy dominant universe?
It is likely that far into the future all matter will decay leaving only photons whizzing around, but not becuase of nuclear fusion.
ya! talking about the stars with mass less than 1.44 solar mass..they end as black dwarfs.they become totally inactive and undergo no significant change.ARE they left as it like a cosmic garbage with no role in cosmic phenomema?You could answer that question by yourself, look up nuclear fusion, and looking at the life cycle of stars that are less than 1 solar mass.we observe that most of the forms of matter that we see in the universe -stars galaxies black holes....are all radiating energy in some or the other form.-as visible light,infrared,radio waves,X-rays etc etc...
By einteins equation of mass energy equivalence E=mc^2 we can conclude that most of the matter is being converted into into energy form?Can it be that finally we will have all the matters perish and we will be left only with an enrgy dominant universe?
It is likely that far into the future all matter will decay leaving only photons whizzing around, but not becuase of nuclear fusion.
*******************************************
And if u say that the future universe is going to be photon dominant ,we can conclude that the density of the future universe will be very less (as there wont be much matter to account for density of the universe)so it will obviously be less than what we call "critical density".Hence the future of our universe is goin to be an ever expanding state!And there wont be a state for the contraction of universe...reversal of time ,singularity & all that!
So I've solved the mystery for the future of the universe.....where's Mr.Stefen hawking?
Yep!
With their dead planets orbiting them, eventually to collide, then a few brief sparks...
Then after a really long delay the atoms will decay and dissintegrate...
Sad really, everthing you try to keep or presewrve will day fall to pieces!
I dont get it? What is being collided with the black dwarf?Arnd how is spark generatinG?And u didnt make it clear how the atoms will finally disintegrate?
The orbits of the dead planets around a dead star will eventually decay, that is, the planet will eventually 'fall into' it's star, this collision will cause massive amounts of heat to be generated - I just called them sparks.I dont get it? What is being collided with the black dwarf?Arnd how is spark generatinG?And u didnt make it clear how the atoms will finally disintegrate?
The disintegration of the atoms is a proposed future state of the universe, not my idea, but what the cosmologists say.
Here you go read up on it!
http://www.fathom.com/course/10701055/
Let's be clear everyone. The title of this thread is, "So who believes in the big bang theory?"
The operative words are "believes" and "theory".
Big Bang Theory to the extreme:
"Heat death" is the end game in big bang theory, and beyond the standard model of BBT and into and beyond quantum theory (QT), there is a exact final end where everything is just gone. In the progress toward the end, cold dead matter as we know it would continue to degrade and decay to the "photon only" environment and would continue to expand because photons do not exert gravity and are not attracted by gravity and they would have momentum right up to the end. The expanding universe would not stop and freeze in place, it would freeze into an expansion of mass-less photons with nothing left but their spin and frequency. Slowly these final attributes of cold dying photons would give way to the ultimate end because mass-less, frequency-less, spin-less photons cease to exist all together when they lose all of their final degraded characteristics.
The final end in BBT/QT/and beyond is nothing.
Unless: BBT is wrong.
The "believe" part of the thread topic suggests that there are other possibilities to "believe".
That is why I have posted to this thread. I conclude that not only the "end" in BBT is wrong, but the "beginning" is also wrong.
My conclusion is that the "singularity" from which the big bang started was really a big crunch of matter and energy that got attracted together from the far reaches of the greater universe where crunches and bangs are occurring naturally here and there all the time.
In my view, the cold expansion of the remnants of the big bang will expand out into an arena that then feeds various and sundry big crunches that are slowly growing out there no matter which way you go.
The big crunches will compress all of the dead cold matter back into a hot crunch that will become another big bang far removed from the many previous big bangs whose remnants have been attracted into it.
There is no end in the infinite universe that is my favorite alternative to BBT, just like there was no beginning to such a universe. It has always existed and will always exist in "theory".
OK, then all we need do is say yes or no to a belief and leave it at that.
So here is my declaration..
Based on the overwhelming evidence presented for a big bang and the romantic notions of all the unsupported alternatives, I believe the Big Bang is the most likely theory for the origin of the universe as it is today.
When you say Big Bang, are you saying Big Bang Theory which itself does not specify that there was a singularity, or are you saying the singularity itself which was the big bang event?
And if you are saying the singularity which was the event, what evidence do you have besides the expansion we observe and the attributes of the cosmic microwave background radiation that we observe. The phrase "overwhelming" would seem to imply more evidence of the event itself than expansion and CMBR which don't preclude a big crunch preceding the bang.
The universe is very small, very very small, it (the universe),resides in an infinity the universe has a definite size, it is finite. A finite object in an infinity is infintesimal. The universe started as energy only. A minute amount of energy, a finite amount of energy in an infinity. The amount of energy which formed the universe was infinitesimal. Why is it so difficult for people to comprehend that an infinitesimal amount of energy in an infinity created the universe?
WE all seem to look at planets and think OMG how could something so big be created from nothing? - well it wasn't, it was created from a tiny amount of energy.
I slightly rephrased that statement, so see if it still conveys the message you intended.
The universe is very small and though it resides in infinity, the universe has a definite finite size. A finite object within “infinity” is infinitesimal. The universe started as energy only; a minute amount of energy, a finite amount of energy in infinity. The amount of energy which formed the universe was infinitesimal.
If you agree with it, so do I. Then:
This finite amount of energy could have come from a big crunch that processed all of the matter that accumulated in it into an infinitesimal amount of energy which banged into our known, visible, expanding universe. This represents the conclusion that matter is made of energy and is converted back to energy in a big crunch.
Your paraphrase is acceptable, your second statement though I do not agree with. You have used the word ,mass, where previously you appeared to agree with my asertion that it was energy only and not mass which existed in the early universe.
I do not understand why there has to be a 'big crunch' to me this suggests the whole thing is being compliacated by adding another phase, and another layer of physics to explain this matter to energy then back to matter scenario you seem to suggest.
Are you referring to the words, "This represents the conclusion that matter is made of energy ..."? The word "matter" is the closest I came to using the word mass in the statement following the one that we agree on.
I wrote in the second statement, "This finite amount of energy could have come from a big crunch that processed all of the matter that accumulated in it into an infinitesimal amount of energy which banged into our known, visible, expanding universe. This represents the conclusion that matter is made of energy and is converted back to energy in a big crunch."Are you saying that there is no physics necessary to expain the source of the energy in the statement that we agree on?I do not understand why there has to be a 'big crunch' to me this suggests the whole thing is being compliacated by adding another phase, and another layer of physics to explain this matter to energy then back to matter scenario you seem to suggest.
My proposal in the second statement is that the energy came form a place that can be imagined. Do you mean that the singularity comes from a place that can't be imagined or are you saying that we cannot know for sure? I agree with "we cannot know for sure".
The problem with "we cannot know for sure" is that if we stop there, we are imagining a singularity that has no imagined physics to support it. In my statement, we cannot know, but we can imagine a scenario that could make it so.
I agree with this interpretation of my original statement.
[quote="bogie"]
The universe is very small and though it resides in infinity, the universe has a definite finite size. A finite object within “infinity” is infinitesimal. The universe started as energy only; a minute amount of energy, a finite amount of energy in infinity. The amount of energy which formed the universe was infinitesimal.
[quote]
I do not agree with the rest of your post which goes:-
As I said the amount of energy is infinitesimal, it could simply have been the result of two matter antimatter pairs appearing in a straight line BUT instead of each pair immediately cancelling, the two inner ones cancelled leaving the outer ones to far apart to 'cancel'. these matter -antmatter perticles are known to exist - they are the building blocks of hawking radiation. There is no need for mass or 'something out of nothing' in this theory. I cannot remember where I first saw this one but out of all the various theories of pre-big-bang it is the one that most appeals to me.
PS I don't think I have ever mentioned a singularity in the context of this thread.
I don't know, maybe not, but you have been an advocate of BBT I think. BBT does not state that there was a singularity either. It implies a singularity, and so if you advocate BBT, then you advocate the implied singularity.I do not agree with the rest of your post which goes:-
As I said the amount of energy is infinitesimal, it could simply have been the result of two matter antimatter pairs appearing in a straight line BUT instead of each pair immediately cancelling, the two inner ones cancelled leaving the outer ones to far apart to 'cancel'. these matter -antmatter perticles are known to exist - they are the building blocks of hawking radiation. There is no need for mass or 'something out of nothing' in this theory. I cannot remember where I first saw this one but out of all the various theories of pre-big-bang it is the one that most appeals to me.
PS I don't think I have ever mentioned a singularity in the context of this thread.
I have noticed that you are not as adamant about the singularity and even have some ideas about might have happened instead of a singularity.
The events where matter-antimatter particles are occurring are always accompanied by a cause for the occurrence. There are various causes that all can lead to these pairs. One cause is around the black hole like you mentioned as Hawking radiation. This type of matter/antimatter pair is caused by X-rays and Gamma Rays emitted by high energy events in the vicinity of black holes where particles are highly accelerated and colliding. The Hawking idea is that one of the two pairs will enter the black hole, annihilating a tiny matter particle, and over time the entire black hole could be annihilated. It would take longer than the universe has existed, and there is no explanation why only the antimatter piece would enter the black hole, but they are working on it.
Other pairs are thought to appear in quantum particle environments that are supposed to be "virtual" particles that are being proposed to explain gravity in quantum mechanics.
It is true also that matter/antimatter pairs can annihilate each other resulting in nothing. If you have them coming from nothing to begin with and the annihilate themselves, we would have no universe. The theory you are referring to says that when the matter/antimatter particles are done annihilating themselves, for some reason some of the matter particles survive, and those surviving particles are what makes up the matter of our universe.
That theory though has no answer to why some of the particles survive the annihilation period.
Gamma rays themselves are said to decay into matter/antimatter pairs, but when this particular type of pair annahilates itself, a gamma ray is created again, conserving the energy and momentum.
If you search you will be able to verify what I am saying, and you will also be able to find statements that refute what I am saying. We just don't know for sure. I just want to be able to imagine a scenario that could explain things instead of one that can't.
You really will end up either accepting a point where something has to happen that can't be explained, or you will have to conclude that the universe has always existed.
You are correct that I am not a fan of the singularity where the BB is concerned. I have seen learned articles which refer to spontaneous matter antmatter particles appearing. I do not propose that the universe actually started in this way, I merely indicated it was the most appealing of the current theories and therefore the one I tend to lean towards if I had to 'put money on it'.
I do not agree with your final sentence, I do not believe the universe always existed, the universe is composed of time space matter and energy, not all of these were around at the time of the expansion. I am quite happy at the end of the day, if neccessary to conclude that the universe appeared from nothing. If you consider that there was always 'something' I simply ask how was it created. Eventually you have a choice. It all sprang from nothing, or god created it. I choose it all sprang from a point of energy, whose origin is likely to remain a mystery.
That is the appealing point of the "universe has always existed" scenario, i.e. it was not created. It has always existed and was not created or caused.I think those two choices, 1) it began from nothing, and 2) God did it, is an incomplete list of the choices. I think the list should read: Three choices are: 1) It began from nothing, 2) God did it, and 3) It has always existed and was not created or caused.
Eventually you have a choice. It all sprang from nothing, or god created it. I choose it all sprang from a point of energy, whose origin is likely to remain a mystery.
| « Shrinkage of black holes. | the information paradox. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
