Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Marvin Cruzan on February 3, 2009 at 10:29am

"Either the universe has ever exhisted, or it emerged from nowhere in one moment. Neither of those options seems reasonable to me. Amazingly, the only thing that makes sense in my head is that the univers should not exhist"

No, this is obviously unreasonable.

As I've said, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Now I'm not saying mine is correct - I'm just an ignorant school drop out who has not been inculcated with the theories of others. Therefore, I've been able to reach conclusions on my own.

Science has never been able to "explain" how the universe began without resorting to theory. That being the Big Bang.

Unfortunately, the Big Bang theory itself depends on additional layers of theories of particles, time, etc., to support it. Theories to support theories is a red flag indicating bad science. Unable to contemplate what came before the Big Bang, and not being able to contemplate what comes after, be it an ever an expanding universe (implying infinite time), or what comes after a collapse (also implying infinite time), is additional evidence of of a pseudo-theistic explanation of some sort of creation held by scientists.

BTW, as melhores habilidades com inglês ajudariam. Esta não é criticar; minha habilidade com português é… um LOL muito mais mau.....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gabriel dCF on February 3, 2009 at 11:30am

Well, I know it's not reasonable to state the universe should not exist, in fact, we've got empirical evidence that it does indeed, LOL...

I'm not an expert either, but as far as I know, there are lots of evidences that support the Big Bang theory, as you can see here: Observational evidence of Bib Bang (Wikipedia) , though science is not able to explain anything before the initial singularity yet. There are some hypothesis, anyway. According to some proposals the time is infinite, according to others it's not.

And I'm really sorry for my bad English, I surely need more practice and study. But hey, at least I don't use online translation tools to write, LOL - as a piece of advice: don't use them, the result is terrible :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marvin Cruzan on February 3, 2009 at 2:40pm

"...don't use [online translation tools], the result is terrible :)"

Of course English is my native language, and I know German and a smattering of French (only enough to get into trouble). Naturally, I know absolutely no Portuguese, but I try to accommodate...:) But posting on a board of your choice in another language is an excellent way to practice spelling and grammar.

Moving on...

There is no proof that there was a Big Bang, only circumstantial evidence. It originated in the late forties as an explanation to Hubble's Red Shift. The trouble is that there are other possible causes for a red shift in distant stellar objects that, at least to me, are more reasonable and require no synthesized creation theory such as a Big Bang. A better understanding of waves would help.

Like religion, the Big Bang fails to consider the "what came before" and the "what comes after" parts. And the one thing that I am positive is that I don't know everything. That's why I'm attracted to a description of the universe that is infinite in both time and dimension. It presents a theory that is simple, elegant and subject only to change. Gods need not apply.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gabriel dCF on February 3, 2009 at 3:34pm

I speak a little bit of French too. And Spanish. But both are even worse then my English :) I hope participating of A|N may help me to improve spelling and grammar.

About Big Bang, Hubble's redshift is not the only evidence that supports Big Bang, it's not even the strongest one. There are solid evidence from satellites, such as COBE and WMAP, that analyzed data from cosmic microwave background radiation; the distribution of masses of atomic nuclei fits well the predictions of Big Bang theory; so deos the galactic evolution and distribution and many others. Once again, I suggest you this text from Wikipedia for further information.

Nowadays, the Big Bang theory is practically consensual, the steady-state theory has already been abandoned. Either we like it or not, we have to deal with the idea that the universe (or at least this universe we live in) had a beginning, 13.7 billion years ago. If science cannot yet provide a viable explanation about "what came before" and "what comes after", that's another business. We don't know everything, afterall, as you've said.

Is it possible that before Big Bang there were another universe or multiverse infinite in time and space? Well that's an idea that could be considered. But the possibility of time and space have been brought about by Big Bang cannot be dismissed. And, anyway, if the latter case is true, it doesn't imply in the existence of God. In any case, God's existence raises more questions then answers, since we'd have to find out he came into existence himself.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Polymath on February 5, 2009 at 8:27am

There is no proof that there was a Big Bang, only circumstantial evidence. It originated in the late forties as an explanation to Hubble's Red Shift. The trouble is that there are other possible causes for a red shift in distant stellar objects that, at least to me, are more reasonable and require no synthesized creation theory such as a Big Bang. A better understanding of waves would help.

This is wrong from both the historical perspective and the actual facts of the matter. The Big Bang description was part of Einstein's theory of general relativity. He originally modified his theory to *avoid* universal expansion, an act he described as his 'worst mistake'. Hubble found the red shifts in the early 1920's and this fit into general relativity quite well. LeMaitre (a catholic priest) described the hot Big Bang theory.

The red shifts are not the only evidence for a hot Big Bang. In fact, the best evidence is the cosmic background radiation, which is an almost perfect Planck back body radiation. No other description has been able to explain this radiation and why it is so close to the theoretical predictions. But even more, the very small fluctuations (which are one part in 100,000) from the 'perfect' curve are *also* described by the Big Bang scenario. With the detailed analysis of these fluctuations, we have entered the era of precision cosmology. The universe *is* about 13.7 billion years old and was, at one time, incredibly hot and dense.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Francisco Aguilar on March 26, 2009 at 11:04pm

Marwin, I have ONE big complaint about your post, not only you are NOT an ignorant drop out even if you were made to believe such nonsense. You are thinking about some of the most difficult to understand mysteries of this, our Universe.
Not even the most knowledgeable scientists on this matters thinks that he knows for sure, or that he holds the ultimate truth.
On your point of theories to support theories I do not think that it works that way. I think that when the experiments or the data collected with different instruments, like particle accelerators, or observations like gamma ray, X-Ray, Micro Wave Background Radiation , does not coincide with existing theories, then, other theories are proposed that have to be proven and tested against more data collected.
It is known that photons are the product of electrons exchange of energy, they absorb the energy of a photon and release a photon of same energy, but, what is the fundamental understanding of why, how, this process takes place, no idea.
A famous Physicist Richard Feynman, who according to most of his contemporaries was more knowledgeable about Quantum Mechanics than any one else, and he said: Any body who tells you he understand Quantum Mechanics does not know what he is talking about, including myself.
We observe strange Quantum effects, but why? I think that we are far from answering how does the Universe works, but we will continue to look for answers and I hope that you too get engaged in this pursuit and also that you realize that not having a formal education does not make you an ignorant, may be to the contrary, you are fresh and ready to learn and teach others.

Francisco

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Polymath on February 5, 2009 at 8:21am

First of all, the Big Bang is a consequence of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is the best description of gravity we have at this point. It describes a universe that is either expanding or contracting with time, depending on such things as the density of matter and energy. The hot Big Bang description notes that the current universe is expanding and that, as we go back in time, the density and hence the temperature increase. So, the theory describes a time when the universe was very hot and dense. Because the temperature was as high as it was, the actual physic simplifies considerably: the atoms had broken into nuclei and electrons. Before that, the nuclei had broken into protons and neutrons.

Next, from the time when the universe was predominantly electrons, positrons, neutrons, and light, we have a *very* good understanding of things which match the data that we actually see: the cosmic background radiation, the red shifts, the *fluctuations* in the background radiation, etc. The Big Bang, as a statement that the universe was once hot and dense and has expanded since then is well established. Some details are being filled in, but the overall picture is solid.

Next, under general relativity, there *is* no 'before the Big Bang'. Time is part of the universe and is affected by things like energy density and gravity (we know this, by the way). General relativity describes gravity and spacetime as being *curved*. It turns out that asking what is before the Big Bang is somewhat like asking what is north of the north pole: the question assumes things that are not correct. Time, in the basic Big Bang model, has a beginning.

Now, it is quite possible that the modifications needed to make general relativity consistent with quantum mechanics will change that conclusion. We don't know. But, in that case, there was a previous, contracting universe that lead to our own. In that case, time is infinite into the past. That is completely consistent and no difficulty.

Finally, your understanding of conservation laws in general relativity is faulty. They say that a quantity (like energy or charge) at one *time* is the same as the quantity at any other *time*. In other words, time is a fundamental part of such laws. In particular, if there is no time 'before the Big Bang', there is also no violation of those conservation laws.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Francisco Aguilar on February 20, 2009 at 1:00pm

Hi there Joshua1080109

I can not answer your questions but I can encourage you to keep asking yourself why? how? when?
Keeping your curiosity alive is part of being human and being alive.
Also, I am not interested in arguing or fighting, I am interested only in conversations with goals of understanding, learning and improving the potential for a peaceful future.
There are many things for which there are no answers today, and maybe will never be.
Still, the marvel of being able to observe these mysteries, being part of this universe that contain those mysteries is a marvelous trip, do not miss it.

Francisco

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by gman on March 9, 2009 at 11:24pm

There are some good answers here to show our current reasoning behind the idea of the Big Bang.
I feel like I should also mention this, due to the OP saying that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. However, that is not the case, matter is constantly being created even in the emptiness of space, the matter that is created is known as a virtual pair, because it always happens that a matter particle and it's anti-matter particle are created and then they simply annihilate each other.
But, certain events can split them apart before this happens, such as the event horizon of a black hole.

Also, I believe the theories behind the big bang state that time and space themselves did not exist before the big bang.... so actually that sentence doesn't make sense "before the big bang...." It is meaningless to ponder it. Our concept of time is very poor IMO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Francisco Aguilar on March 10, 2009 at 1:41am

Jason, it is true that virtual particles form and annihilate, their life is very very short, and it is true that matter could not be created or destroyed, the virtual particles are only a brief expression of the latent energy that pervades all space, and when they annihilate they return the same amount of energy that formed them.
This area of particle physics and quantum mechanics is way beyond me but I do have enough understanding to be dangerous. I feel very good that you read my comment and answered.
If you live in the Chicago area I will give you a very good lead.
For more than twenty years I attend the University of Chicago and Fermi Labs Compton Lectures on Physics, and they cover Astrophysics, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Optics, Big Bang Theory, Microwave Background Radiation, The accelerating Universe and potential explanations, Dark Matter and on and on.
This lectures are free and designed to inform the interested public on the latest discoveries, experiments etc.
This lectures are on Saturdays from 11:00 to 12:00 Noon and last for ten weeks, the next series will be starting soon, if you are interested, answer to this one and I will post the dates and other pertinent information so you could attend. The place is at Ellis ave and 57th ST at the Kirsten Physics Building.

Greetings
Francisco

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rev Hellbound Alleee on April 4, 2009 at 9:49pm

Only creationism is the belief that something came from nothing. Not the Big Bang Theory. Actually, some creationist stories (remember: there are WAY OLDER stories out there than the Talking Snake Theory) DO hold that the Stuff of Life existed always. There's the Dragon/egg theory, even the Hindu belief systems manage to take more of the universe into account than referring to the stars as just lights in the sky.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Athianarchist on July 31, 2009 at 6:35pm

Well the fact that time began at the Big Bang and didn't exist beforehand is a good point. But we've got to remember that the actual Big Bang occurred in an interval less than the Planck Time, so there really isn't a conceivable way to truly explain or "observe" what really happened at the initial point, only slightly after the Planck Time(which of course overwhelmingly points to the Big Bang). One theory I have found interesting states that the universe has pretty much always existed and continually dies and is reborn through Big Crunch-Big Bang contractions. Of course until the total mass of the universe is calculated(theoretically), there is also the premise of the Big Freeze, which of course would debunk the theory.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page