• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Does anyone have a problem with he Big Bang "Theory"?

NoExpert

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
175
Does anyone have a problem with the Big Bang "Theory"?

I don't mean to say that I believe the universe was created in 6 days, with the7th for rest, and that a rib was taken from man, and used to make woman! Nothing like that... But I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea thata whole universe, filled with millions of galaxys, each in turn filled with stars and solar systems.. All the matter that these billions of stars and planets are made of, supposedly just appeared out of nowhere, in one 1/100 of a split second after the big bang! Now the minerals, and heavier than H elements were not created til later, through fusion, in stars, but where did all this initial H come from? Nowhere!?!
Plus, there seem to be problems in the timeline, and problems in the way the universe has spread.
Once scientists have proved that H atoms, in huge quantities can be 'created' from nothing in a lab, I'll be closer to believing it! Also, what caused this universe creation to begin? There has to be something or some force(intelligent or spontaneous) that caused the "Bang" to happen! But most perplexing, if it started from nothing, in a non existent place, then suddenly blew up and created "open space". What exactly was this "nowhere, nothing", where it all began. 8(
What do you think?8)

- Reason for edit: changed thread title typo for you. sorry didn't realize it would make it say 'thread edited by qwe'! (first edit of anothers' post)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
woot.

you forget that matter and energy is interchangeable.

while no one really has a clue as to what caused the big bang, we do know that there was a bunch of energy that converted into a bunch of matter all at once. then we had the soup of sub atomic particles that condensed into atoms, and from there we go onward.

one cannot create matter from nothing, but one can create it from energy.
 
It leads one to think that the universe is a part of an even bigger picture that gave rise to it. What gave rise to this bigger picture context, and what gave rise to that, etc... Do these questions even translate into anything meaningful within this bigger context?
 
while i generally dislike terry pratchett, i do like his description of the big bang:

"in the beginning. there was nothing. which exploded."

:)

alasdair
 
Hydrogen source for fuel cell cars.....Problem solved!

alasdairm said:
while i generally dislike terry pratchett, i do like his description of the big bang:

"in the beginning. there was nothing. which exploded."

:)

alasdair


All we have to do is, attach fuses(wicks) to large piles of nothing(which are very cheap, cause there's nothing to them=D ) , then light the fuses, and stand back...
After the explosion, we'll then have lots of hydrogen!
See how simple that was! Thank you, world renowned astronomers!;)
 
But I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea thata whole universe, filled with millions of galaxys, each in turn filled with stars and solar systems.. All the matter that these billions of stars and planets are made of, supposedly just appeared out of nowhere, in one 1/100 of a split second after the big bang!
well no, there were not solar systems and stars and galaxies after the first 1/100 seconds. there was a shower of particles i assume, which:
Now the minerals, and heavier than H elements were not created til later, through fusion, in stars, but where did all this initial H come from? Nowhere!?!
zipped around according to the laws which govern their behavior,

and eventually the electrons ended up pairing with protons forming electron orbital clouds around the protons,

hence creating hydrogen!

IIRC, gravity did the rest of the work of collapsing the hydrogen into many stars
Plus, there seem to be problems in the timeline, and problems in the way the universe has spread.
like?
Once scientists have proved that H atoms, in huge quantities can be 'created' from nothing in a lab, I'll be closer to believing it!
well again, the big bang did not start with hydrogen, but rather other particles settled into hydrogen

and indeed, particles DO hop in and out of existence all the time. just wiki quantum mechanics to get a basic overview of it and youll see that the vaacuum/empty space isnt as empty as it seems :p
Also, what caused this universe creation to begin? There has to be something or some force(intelligent or spontaneous) that caused the "Bang" to happen!
the big bang theory explains what happened since immediately after the big bang until today. it deals with space, time, matter, energy

however, if you want to explain what lies beyond hte big bang, what gives rise to existence as we know it, why big bang(s) might happen...

well that is another type theory, and we have no clue what it will be like. and that will be beyond even string theory, so it is probably rather far away

so in sum, you cant say "well if evolution or the atom theory describes the universe so well, why doesnt it say why the universe is here in the first place?". that question has to be answered in a different way and maybe a different field altogether
But most perplexing, if it started from nothing, in a non existent place, then suddenly blew up and created "open space". What exactly was this "nowhere, nothing", where it all began.
well see above :P. we dont know "WHAT" is outside of this universe. but we do know that the idea that space can expand, once the big bang put it into existance, is not far fetched because even today space is expanding (faster and faster)
 
^^ very nice post

Theres no way to understand what was before the big bang, and really no reason to try to understand it. I feel that humans simply couldnt understand what was before the big bang because it prolly contradicts everything we know.
 
I'd wager it has something to do with the fact that matter and anti-matter can flash in and out of existence for very short periods of time (Which incidentally is why micro-black holes the LHC might create wont kill us all)

If you create a complete vacuum, there will still be matter in there. This is due to equal amounts of matter and anti-matter coming into and out of existence in the vacuum.

The way black holes can 'evaporate' is when this matter/antimatter combo comes into existence at the event horizon (the point at which nothing can escape the black holes pull), now if the matter is created just outside the event horizon and the anti-matter is created just inside, then the matter will escape and the anti-matter will be sucked in (destroying some matter in the black hole) and the black hole has lost some mass by "evaporating"

Or so said Dr Karl on JJJ this morning :)
 
^
unless Hawking is wrong, in which case we build a fleet of ships for the few survivors in search of... New Caprica

(if you are confused, dont worry as you have to have seen battlestar galactica to get the joke)

and to add to mr white's post, the smaller a black hole is, the more evaporation a black hole will experience. so the smallest black holes (like what would be formed at the LHC) would last picoseconds, and the largest could last well beyond our lifetime (even if ray kurzweil gets his (and mine) wish of indefinite life extension)

and thanks PDB! though i would disagree that we cannot understand what lies beyond. it is like saying, in ancient times, that we cannot understand lightning. then saying, in the 1800s, we cannot understand the action-at-a-distance of gravity/electricity. etc etc
 
alasdairm said:
while i generally dislike terry pratchett, i do like his description of the big bang:

"in the beginning. there was nothing. which exploded."

:)

alasdair
Nice quote! I like :D
 
Does anyone have a problem with the Big Bang "Theory"?
does anyone know of a theory explaining the existance of the universe which he does not have a problem with?

with our limited understanding, i'm afraid all these theories defy our (limited) logic at some point

supposedly just appeared out of nowhere
that's not necessarily how scientists view the big bang
many ask "what was there before the big bang?"

in one 1/100 of a split second
as said by someone else, elements such as hydrogen took much longer to be created
but about the big bang itself, the thory goes back to 10(-43) seconds (plank time) after the big bang. much shorter than 1/100 sec

can be 'created' from nothing in a lab
it's already been said that pairs of particles do appear out of "nowhere" all the time everywhere. that means it's happening in fromn of your eyes without you noticing it. no need for a lab

without explaining it, we know it for a fact
so it's not much weirder to conclude that in certain circumstances, such particles would end up in forming atoms

What do you think?
i think the universe did appear out of nothing. but my only arguments are my conviction and insights that i got on psychedelics which i can't reproduce with our language :)
 
There wasn't necessarily "nothing", it's just that if everything is undifferentiated matter/energy then there is nothing to compare anything else to.



The ideas of virtual particles and matter antimatter interactions is fundamental to this. If in nothing, virtual particles where continually being created and annihilating each other the overall effect was 0, but there was still stuff going on.

Does No-thing = Nothing?
 
qwe said:
^
unless Hawking is wrong, in which case we build a fleet of ships for the few survivors in search of... New Caprica

(if you are confused, dont worry as you have to have seen battlestar galactica to get the joke)

and to add to mr white's post, the smaller a black hole is, the more evaporation a black hole will experience. so the smallest black holes (like what would be formed at the LHC) would last picoseconds, and the largest could last well beyond our lifetime (even if ray kurzweil gets his (and mine) wish of indefinite life extension)

and thanks PDB! though i would disagree that we cannot understand what lies beyond. it is like saying, in ancient times, that we cannot understand lightning. then saying, in the 1800s, we cannot understand the action-at-a-distance of gravity/electricity. etc etc


From what I've heard in science publications and shows, we(or they) still don't fully understand gravity in the 21st century!
 
^well we are a little closer, probably, to understanding how forces act 'at a distance' with our force-carrying particle models, but true, we have no clue what gravity may be. well we have clues and ideas, but no data yet

but, as i said, those are models, and they dont make intuitive sense...

to calculate the energy of a force-carrying photon during its path from particle A to particle B (which mediates the electromagnetic force), you'd have to calculate every single path that particle would take between charged particle A and charged particle B, even a path all the way to Alpha Centauri and back

it's as if spacetime is a pond, and every particle is a stick being dragged across the pond, creating ripples as it goes. though even that analogy has its flaws
 
well no, there were not solar systems and stars and galaxies after the first 1/100 seconds. there was a shower of particles i assume, which:

I should have been more clear there, as I mentioned in the next sentence, that all the heavier than H elements didnt form til billions of years later, after the stars had formed, meaning that planets couldn't exist til later....

Also, the space between solid matter isn't necessarily 'empty' as it contains dark matter (and anti-matter?)


but about the big bang itself, the thory goes back to 10(-43) seconds (plank time) after the big bang. much shorter than 1/100 sec


Yeah, I just didnt have the time to type out all those zeros!!


i think the universe did appear out of nothing. but my only arguments are my conviction and insights that i got on psychedelics which i can't reproduce with our language


I've had a few epiphanies....Moments where all the answers seemed soooo clear while 'partaking', but when I came back into 'this' reality, I couldn't remember it!!! But I did remember how profound it was....
 
OP, I think you are criticising a theory on the grounds that it doesn't do something that it doesn't claim to do.

Ernestrome said:
Does No-thing = Nothing?

Well think about it like this:

Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
Eating a hamburger is better than nothing.
Therefore, eating a hamburger is better than eternal happiness.

Would that have been the same if Nothing had been substituted with No-thing?
 
NoExpert said:
I don't mean to say that I believe the universe was created in 6 days, with the7th for rest, and that a rib was taken from man, and used to make woman! Nothing like that... But I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea thata whole universe, filled with millions of galaxys, each in turn filled with stars and solar systems.. All the matter that these billions of stars and planets are made of, supposedly just appeared out of nowhere, in one 1/100 of a split second after the big bang! Now the minerals, and heavier than H elements were not created til later, through fusion, in stars, but where did all this initial H come from? Nowhere!?!
Plus, there seem to be problems in the timeline, and problems in the way the universe has spread.
Once scientists have proved that H atoms, in huge quantities can be 'created' from nothing in a lab, I'll be closer to believing it! Also, what caused this universe creation to begin? There has to be something or some force(intelligent or spontaneous) that caused the "Bang" to happen! But most perplexing, if it started from nothing, in a non existent place, then suddenly blew up and created "open space". What exactly was this "nowhere, nothing", where it all began. 8(
What do you think?8)

- Reason for edit: changed thread title typo for you. sorry didn't realize it would make it say 'thread edited by qwe'! (first edit of anothers' post)
Hi NoExpert,

Well, I think you've got the wrong idea of what the Big Bang Model is. In fact the big bang model doesn't say anything about the universe suddenly appearing out of nowhere, or being caused by nothing, or anything of that sort. We don't know any of those things, and the big bang model -- like other established theories in science -- is about things we know. Or at least, things we can be pretty certain of based on the evidence.

What the Big Bang Model does say is (at heart) this: that the present-day universe has expanded and cooled from an extremely hot, dense, nearly-homogenous state about 14 billion years ago. That's what we know.

Now if you follow this expansion back far enough you approach a point in time where the universe approaches infinite temperature & density and all distances shrink to nothing. That's the "big bang singularity." But strictly speaking, the big bang singularity isn't part of the hot big bang model at all. We know the big bang model of expansion is true to within seconds "after" the singularity happened (or would have happened.) We have good hints that it works to within a tiny fraction of a second "after" the singularity would have happened.

But beyond that, we just don't know. Most researchers believe there wasn't an actual singularity. When you go back close enough to the big bang singularity, the universe gets dense enough that the theory we use afterwards -- Einstein's General Relativity, which is what predicts a singularity -- that theory probably no longer works. Quantum gravitational effects should become important then, and we don't know how quantum gravity works. So where the "big bang" came from, what if anything caused it, what was around before -- we don't know any of these things, and they're not part of the big bang model. People have come up with theories -- guesses is probably a better word -- for how such a big bang could have arisen in a larger universe. But as of right now, we have no way of knowing whether or not any of those ideas are correct.

As for how we know the hot big bang model is true, well, there's a lot of evidence. You can find it briefly discussed lots of places, eg http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html or http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence . In ultra-brief, the first evidence for it comes from just looking around. When we look at galaxies, we see that they're all flying apart from one another. Just following their paths backward, we see that they would have all been right on top of one another around 10-20 billion years ago. Hence, the basic idea of the hot big bang model!

There's lots of corroboration that this is what happened. We can calculate and measure all sorts of things about the expansion, what's inside the universe, etc., based on the big bang model and it all hangs together -- when it wouldn't be expected to if that model were false. The amounts of light elements in the universe -- hydrogen, various isotopes of helium, and lithium -- exactly match the amounts that would be produced in the first ~5 minutes after the big bang, when the universe was hot & dense enough to essentially be a giant nuclear fireball. When we look far enough away, we see a nearly-perfectly-even glow, called the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB or CMBR). It has exactly the right temperature and spectrum to be the glow left over from when the primordial fireball of the universe cooled enough to become dark (called recombination.) And the ripples we've recently detected in this glow are just the right size to have led to the formation of galaxies & clusters (such as we see now) in ~14 billion years -- just the amount of time we calculate since the big bang!
 
In my mind, the Big Bang Model raises more questions than it answers. As zorn points out, the universe came from a hot, dense homogenous ball of some primordial form of matter or energy. So where did this extremely hot, dense thing come from in the first place? What caused it to expand? If time and space break down in that state (there was no time axis?), how could it have started expanding in the first place? If there was one ball of matter, why can't there be more big bangs - a multiverse populated with universes formed from multiple big bangs - in other places or planes ?
 
Rated E said:
OP, I think you are criticising a theory on the grounds that it doesn't do something that it doesn't claim to do.



Well think about it like this:



Would that have been the same if Nothing had been substituted with No-thing?

In case it wasn't clear, it was a rhetorical question.

Just because there were no things before the big bang doesn't mean there was nothing.
 
Top