NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the greatest problems I have with NS general is that with such a huge amount of Creationists vs Evolutionists threads, Big Bang Theory doesn't get much of a go. This, I believe, is a real pity because it is such a magnificent theory and without it Evolution is up the creek. So here is the Question: What do people think of the Big Bang theory?

And please, please, please, please, please, please do not turn this into an evolution thread.

i really like the idea of the universe going from microscopic to unimaginably large in about .003 seconds. that's pretty much the only reason i partake in the big bang theory. because that facet of it brings me great amusement and joy.

i really like the idea of the universe going from microscopic to unimaginably large in about .003 seconds. that's pretty much the only reason i partake in the big bang theory. because that facet of it brings me great amusement and joy.

You sound like the type who judges a theory on the amount of explosions.

I like the way you think.

You sound like the type who judges a theory on the amount of explosions.

I like the way you think.
that's how i judge scientific theory, movies, tv shows, books, my psyche, women and dinner.

that's how i judge scientific theory, movies, tv shows, books, my psyche, women and dinner.

Mate that is brilliant. You should wright a book on that philosophy.

that's how i judge scientific theory, movies, tv shows, books, my psyche, women and dinner.
Your dinner explodes?
Wow. I want some of that!
:D

Your dinner explodes?
Wow. I want some of that!
:D
fuckin a.

Mate that is brilliant. You should wright a book on that philosophy.
i did, but it exploded. :(

Your dinner explodes?
Wow. I want some of that!
:D

Mine does too. Don't try and cook eggs in the microwave. *nods*

*grin*

neither the evolutionists or the creationists satisfy. priests say god has always been here and scientists say energy has always been here. kinda hard to imagine for a creature that only lives about 80 years or so. maybe god is made of energy and thats how the big bang happened? he merely expanded himself...a big yawn and stretch in space....






"dont believe everything you think you know..."

If the universe looks like its expanding (and it does) then the Big Bang is, if not a dead cert, then very nearly one. No other credible theory has arisen to explain why the universe is behaving as it is.

I support the big bang theory, though I'm willing to admit that it may not be entirely correct or conclusively provable yet. I think it's more likely to be substantially correct than other dawn of time theories about...

What I really like though is the Pratchett, cosmic sneeze theory, kinda similar to the big bang with its explosive beginnings, but with the ending of the universe being marked by the coming of the great cosmic hankie to wipe up the mess.

Well, i'm no astrophysicist (hence i don't understand much of it), but i generally agree on the big bang theory.
It's especially interesting though is the fact that there hence was an enormously large amount of time that passed (some 8-10 billion years!) before Earth and the rest of our solar system formed - Creationists usually ignore that.

Btw, in this context i'd like to bring something up which is rather interesting:
For a certain time (i think mid-20th century), the "Steady State Theory" had been in favour by physicists, but it was subsequently proven to be wrong. :)

Some of you might be interested to know that the big bang theory boffins have split into two camps; the traditionalists who think a singularity exploded and the expansionists. They think it was not to much as an explosion, from the inside out, but rather something like suction, caused by there being everything inside the singularity and there being nothing outside. I have snickeringly termed it "The universe's biggest blow job." ;)

"The universe's biggest blow job." i want in.

you ask me if Big Bang exists? HECK YES!!! and it is, and the republicans will kiss my ass for it, the prove that God exist. (Who created all that energy and put it there in the first place?

you ask me if Big Bang exists? HECK YES!!! and it is, and the republicans will kiss my ass for it, the prove that God exist. (Who created all that energy and put it there in the first place?

But that's just the thing, there was no before, so it may not have been there in the first place. It's a very difficult to imagine, but before event zero there was no time because there was no matter. No dimensions, nothing, except possibly a tiny spec which would have been smaller than an atom and held some 90%+ of the current universe.

I think it's a shame that things like the Big Bang, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, or Dark Matter don't get much attention on these boards. There's obviously a number of rather intelligent people around here, and we've almost certainly got at least a couple of physicist types lying around.

www.aldaily.com has some very interesting articles detailing, among other things, how an advanced civilization could escape this universe, why Einstein might be wrong, and the problems today's physicists have with Special Relativity.

I voted yes because from the evidence seen it is more then likely that the big bang theory is close to approximating what actually happened. But there are still a lot of questions unanswered and data not found yet, that could change the current incarnation of the theory.

But that's just the thing, there was no before, so it may not have been there in the first place. It's a very difficult to imagine, but before event zero there was no time because there was no matter. No dimensions, nothing, except possibly a tiny spec which would have been smaller than an atom and held some 90%+ of the current universe.

OK up to the point when you mention the tiny speck. This speck would imply the existence of space, time, gravity and the universe. I understood that before the big bang was a contradictory concept. No time means no before.

OK up to the point when you mention the tiny speck. This speck would imply the existence of space, time, gravity and the universe. I understood that before the big bang was a contradictory concept. No time means no before.

It (the speck) may have existed (according to the traditionalists), and if it did exist I think their position is that those properties were inside rather than outside the singularity. What's more, if the speck did exist as some pregnant atom in nothing it raises the question, what caused the big bang? The singularity was there before time, so what changed to make it expand?

This is what's wonderful about the expansion theory because everything came from nothing, so you don't need the singularity, but this raises the question, how did something come from nothing?

It (the speck) may have existed (according to the traditionalists), and if it did exist I think their position is that those properties were inside rather than outside the singularity. What's more, if the speck did exist as some pregnant atom in nothing it raises the question, what caused the big bang? The singularity was there before time, so what changed to make it expand?

This is what's wonderful about the expansion theory because everything came from nothing, so you don't need the singularity, but this raises the question, how did something come from nothing?

I don't know the traditionalist arguments so I cant comment on what they would say. I would say that to say that a singularity is a speck is a misunderstanding of what a singularity is. A one dimensional point is not a speck.
Secondly "what changed" requires the existence of time. Without time the concept of change does not exist. Nothing changed. There was simply a first moment. "Before that moment" is a meaningless phrase as if there were a before it was not the first monment.

The hyperexpansion theory does start with the Big bang. It does require the singularity, but that is no problem mathematically. It is a conceptual nightmare as we are stuck in a mindset which demands a before and an outside, but theoretically it is fine. Why do you think in terms of "coming from". Nothing does not mean empty space with no content, it means non existence in theis sense. Coming into existence, coming from nothing, etc. all place existence or nothingness as being present. They were not.

One of the greatest problems I have with NS general is that with such a huge amount of Creationists vs Evolutionists threads, Big Bang Theory doesn't get much of a go. This, I believe, is a real pity because it is such a magnificent theory and without it Evolution is up the creek. So here is the Question: What do people think of the Big Bang theory?

And please, please, please, please, please, please do not turn this into an evolution thread.
Well, there are some, like myself, that believe in the principles (not the entire theory of Intelligent Design, mind you) that a Creator started the big bang that created everything physical. After all things do not just happen, something had to push it to begin.
After that dinosuars, than, dragons (which I felt are demon experimented dinosuars lol), and down to evolution that created to man. Now at this point the garden begun.

dragons (which I felt are demon experimented dinosuars lol)

(I know i should refrain from turning this into an evolution thread, but it's got to be said here and now):

Dragons are mythological creatures and there is no evidence they ever existed. The dragons from various mythologies have always been either snake- (see 'wyrm') or crocodile-like (see Leviathan) or a distinct mix of animals (see the Chinese dragon). Also, the latin word Draco actually means 'snake'. Rather, dragons have been backward interpreted to be similar to Dinosaurs once these became known (which wasn't the case until circa 1820 or so).
Finally, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dinosaurs and Humans would have lived at the same time (Fun Fact: i reckon reading somewhere that actually 1 out of 3 Europeans does actually believes that! - I say blame it on the Flintsones! :D). In fact, the massive radiation of the mammals during the Cenozoic wouldn't have occured if Dinosaurs had not become extinct.

Oh, and while we are at it? What about other mythological creatures? How would you explain those? ;)

Ok, i stop now. Back to normal program. :p

The output from the COBE Explorer satellite, along with the math, is incontrivertible proof that the Big Bang took place.

Can't argue with the math.

So, if there was a God who did the Creation thing, that's how he did it. No way around it.

you ask me if Big Bang exists? HECK YES!!! and it is, and the republicans will kiss my ass for it, the prove that God exist. (Who created all that energy and put it there in the first place?

sorry that ennergy has always existed it even exists now today... i can't rember the name of the law but it want, "energy cannot be created, or destroied only transfered from one form to another"

I support the Big Bang theory.

The only problem I am having now is wraping my head around M-theory (membrane theory). The main question of mine being: once those two membranes collided and started the Big Bang of our Universe did our Universe become another separate membrane?

What is the Big Bang Theory?

What is the Big Bang Theory?

is he joking??? if not then go look at google or an encylopeda.

What is the Big Bang Theory?

:eek:

sorry that ennergy has always existed it even exists now today... i can't rember the name of the law but it want, "energy cannot be created, or destroied only transfered from one form to another"

That would be Pascal's law I think

I voted No due to several issues that have been revealed within the theory: In order for an explosion or 'bang' to occur there must be the necesary materials to cause such. Teh lack of material is evident in the 'speck' theory, is a speck enough to cause such a large explosion to become a universe? next comes the math: statisticly it would be a more than 2.6x10to the 46000000000000000/1 that an explosion of htat sort could occur causing the chain reactions necesary for the universe to be in the shape it is currently in. I don't realy like these odds.

pm me if you want the whole analysis of that mathematical equasion. it is taken from study was done at LSSU in the late 1980's and is currently in production process for printing.

My mate Stephen Hawking has this to say aboot the big bang:


Hubble’s observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was
infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability
to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect
what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational
consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply
would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had
been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be
imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine
that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding,
there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still imagine that God created the
universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there
had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An
expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his
job!

No, I'm not joking. I have never heard of it refered to the Big Bang theory. Perhaps I know something about but I don't recall anything. (I want to know the details of it). I know it includes a bang. :rolleyes:

If the universe looks like its expanding (and it does) then the Big Bang is, if not a dead cert, then very nearly one. No other credible theory has arisen to explain why the universe is behaving as it is.
There are vast numbers of alternative theories that explain red-shift in light from distant objects with alternatives to the traditional Doppler-effect line. Anyone can find these on the net (http://www.heretical.com/science/redshift.html is one example).

Scientists should always be wary of the dogmatic "truths" that they are presented with. Sometimes, a theory needs to be scrapped.

The hyperexpansion theory does start with the Big bang. It does require the singularity, but that is no problem mathematically. It is a conceptual nightmare as we are stuck in a mindset which demands a before and an outside, but theoretically it is fine. Why do you think in terms of "coming from". Nothing does not mean empty space with no content, it means non existence in theis sense. Coming into existence, coming from nothing, etc. all place existence or nothingness as being present. They were not.
From what I understand, the singularity contained all the matter presently in the universe, just in the one tiny point, under a huge amount of pressure - this is what caused it to 'explode'.

Finally, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dinosaurs and Humans would have lived at the same time (Fun Fact: i reckon reading somewhere that actually 1 out of 3 Europeans does actually believes that!
Ok, if 1 in 3 Europeans believe that, that would mean that at least 2 in 3 Americans believe it. They're far more credible/gullible than us.

me, i've no idea how the universe came to be, and i don't care either.

No, I'm not joking. I have never heard of it refered to the Big Bang theory. Perhaps I know something about but I don't recall anything. (I want to know the details of it). I know it includes a bang. :rolleyes:

Oh dear... :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

This should do it. :)

You can be religious and believe in both Evolution, Big Bang and Mother Teresa, It's just that you believe G-d directed their actions. :)

I don't understand why people can't understand that...

naye me thinks

Originally posted by Wisjersey
Oh dear...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

This should do it.

Thank you. I read it. It definitely is a huge possibility. I believe the theory could be true. I think it still needs more work. :)

From what I understand, the singularity contained all the matter presently in the universe, just in the one tiny point, under a huge amount of pressure - this is what caused it to 'explode'.


This is the bit where most people go wrong. It is not something that you can visualize, ther was no "tiny speck", "tiny point" because tiny implies a size, no matter how small. A singularity has no size :eek: , it is not and can not be a physical object :eek: :eek: . It is a mathematical description, nothing more, nothing less :confused: .
It is theorised that singularities lie at the centre of black holes, but anything that is beyond the event horizon of a black hole can only be theorised about. Singularities are theoretical models, they have no size, they do not contain anything, as this would imply a size.
They makes your head hurt as well :rolleyes: .

One of the greatest problems I have with NS general is that with such a huge amount of Creationists vs Evolutionists threads, Big Bang Theory doesn't get much of a go. This, I believe, is a real pity because it is such a magnificent theory and without it Evolution is up the creek. So here is the Question: What do people think of the Big Bang theory?
It's not bad as theories go. With the development of M-Theory, it begins to appear that what we refer to as "the Big Bang" was a result of the collision of two "branes," or membranes between universes. Since I'm still trying to get my admittedly non-mathematical brain around all of this, I can't give a really good explanation yet, but you can find more information at http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html

Originally posted by Wisjersey
Ok, if 1 in 3 Europeans believe that, that would mean that at least 2 in 3 Americans believe it. They're far more credible/gullible than us.

I would have to disagree with that. Discussing evolutionism and creationism is a current trend in Europe. I haven't heard any Americans talk about evolution lately with the exception of those NS.

Yes.

I believe in the Big Bang Theory..

I believe that, in that Big Bang, both time and space as we know them and define them today were created.

I believe that, as the universe expands, it creates the space it expands in and, therefore, there is no "outside" the universe or "before" the big bang in human terms. We simply cannot comprehend such notions. Doesn't mean they don't exist though.

Btw, in this context i'd like to bring something up which is rather interesting:
For a certain time (i think mid-20th century), the "Steady State Theory" had been in favour by physicists, but it was subsequently proven to be wrong. :)
Ah, the Steady State theory. It envisioned the universe as without an origin--that is, as having always existed--and as expanding while maintaining a constant average density. This theory posited the continuous creation of matter, with new stars and galaxies forming at the same rate as older ones became unobservable due to the cosmic expansion. A Steady State universe had no beginning or end in time, galaxies of all possible ages were intermingled, and the picture of the universe on a grand scale, viewed from any position, remained essentially the same with respect to the average density and arrangement of galaxies.
Some of the biggest names in the World of Astrophysics were hardened proponents of the SST, including Fred Hoyle who coined (dismissively in order to mock it) the term 'Big Bang'.

The Big Bang theory is better explained by the Inflationary theory.
This describes the very early stages of the universe, and its enormous, though short-lived (perhaps only 10^-35 to 10^-32 seconds), expansion - expanding by at least a factor of 10^30 - 30 orders of magnitude. THis was faster than the speed of light, but that's fine as the Universe itself was expanding, not what was within the Universe, which is set by the lightspeed constant.
The standard Big Bang theory held that the universe began as a very, very big explosion--an expanding fireball. But then it was found that this big explosion was not big enough to explain everything we see in the universe. At the end of the 1970's it was proposed that the early universe came through a stage of inflation, an exponentially rapid expansion in a kind of unstable heavy vacuum-like state (a state with large energy density but without elementary particles). A vacuum-like state in inflationary theory is usually associated with a scalar field, which is often called "the inflation field." So instead of imagining the beginning of the universe as very hot, imagine it at the beginning as this kind of an unstable vacuum-like state that did not contain any elementary particles, but which did contain this scalar field. It is totally empty, without any particles, but still has a lot of energy.
A fraction of a second after the Big Bang, a region of this scalar field starts expanding exponentially. This is our universe, and at this stage it expands much faster than in standard Big Bang theory, and eventually--after another fraction of a second--the scalar field decays. And after that, the evolution of the universe and the formation of elementary particles can be described by standard Big Bang theory.

Then there's the Anthropic Cosmological Principle (ACP) and The Physics of Immortality. The ACP states that there are many different types of universes. Some of them would inflate very rapidly and survive for long periods of time; other universes would have other characteristics, perhaps not inflating as fast and therefore collapsing before intelligent life had time to evolve. So what you have, in effect, is a selection process among all these possible universes. Only those universes that will admit life, that have just the right collection of physical constants and cosmic conditions to allow life to evolve, will have intelligent life able to ask questions like "How old is the universe?" Only in those universes where this question can be asked will it be asked. All other universes will never have intelligent life, so no such issues will ever arise - a tautology really in that only in those universes that allow for intelligent life will there be intelligent questions.

The current size of the universe is estimated as 10^28cm. This is due to the scale and order of magnitude during the inflationary period. If it had been anything else, life could not exist. For example, the Universe could have expanded not by 30 orders of magnitude, but by 1 trillion (10^10^12). To give you even a vague idea of the size of this number, imagine drawing a line 10^10^12cm long no thicker than the width of an hydrogen atom. You have a pen that contains the equivalent of our Universe filled with ink.
You would run out of ink before you had drawn even the tiniest fraction of the line.

Just something else of interest (in case you don't know already) - The static you see on an untuned TV set is the background cosmic radiation, left over from the Big Bang itself. Go on, go untune your TV and connect yourself with the very beginnings of the Universe.

Wow, very interesting. Thanks for that inside. :fluffle:

There are vast numbers of alternative theories that explain red-shift in light from distant objects with alternatives to the traditional Doppler-effect line. Anyone can find these on the net (http://www.heretical.com/science/redshift.html is one example).

Scientists should always be wary of the dogmatic "truths" that they are presented with. Sometimes, a theory needs to be scrapped.
It's also possible that the alternate theories are crap and the mainstream theory is the correct one...

Could anyone answer my question about M-theory?

Could anyone answer my question about M-theory?

I'd suggest looking up articles by Brian Greene. The man is not just a brilliant physicist, but he's also among the best scientists in the world at describing such abstract things such as Calabi-Yau Shapes and Branes in a way that we mere mortals can understand them. He's also one of the foremost proponents of M-theory. ^_^

Incidentally, how do you guys feel about Zero Point Energy, Virtual Particles, and Dark Matter? We're running out of ways to explain the Casamir effect, lol. :)

I voted no in favor of the brane theory. Just two universes smackin' up against each other in a higher dimesnsion, but from the inside, it only looks like something "banged".

I support the Big Bang theory.

The only problem I am having now is wraping my head around M-theory (membrane theory). The main question of mine being: once those two membranes collided and started the Big Bang of our Universe did our Universe become another separate membrane?
No. It did not become another brane.

And the M doesn't stand for membrane at all. Nobody knows what it stands for.

EDIT: Watch a movie on it here. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3014_r_06.html)

I would have to disagree with that. Discussing evolutionism and creationism is a current trend in Europe. I haven't heard any Americans talk about evolution lately with the exception of those NS.
G'mornin' Oksana. I for one, would love to see that sort of discussion go the way of the Dodo! It has become so tiresome that I usually don't even bother reading the first post in a thread about evolution/creationism! :(

It's not bad as theories go. With the development of M-Theory, it begins to appear that what we refer to as "the Big Bang" was a result of the collision of two "branes," or membranes between universes.
M-Theory refers to what used to be Superstring theory. The M does stands for Membrane, but not in the way you are talking about. The Membrane is the 11th Dimension. And within this membrane the entire Universe floats. It is a membrane where there are 10 Dimensions. And there are membranes (think of them as bubbles) within this membrane that other universes exist in. These membranes colliding within the 11th Dimensional membrane causes a release of energy that results in a new universe being born.

In String Theory, the myriad of particle types is replaced by a single fundamental building block, a `string'. These strings can be closed, like loops, or open, like a hair. As the string moves through time it traces out a tube or a sheet, according to whether it is closed or open. Furthermore, the string is free to vibrate, and different vibrational modes of the string represent the different particle types, since different modes are seen as different masses or spins. One mode of vibration, or `note', makes the string appear as an electron, another as a photon. There is even a mode describing the graviton, the particle carrying the force of gravity, which is why String theory is so popular. While Gravity may have been the first force to be discovered, it is the least understood of the 4 (the Weak and Strong nuclear forces and Electromagnetism).
Why this is important is that Gravity appears contradictory - it is strong enough to keep us firmly planted on Earth, keeping our Earth rolling around the sun and our Solar system in place in the Milky Way, yet an ordinary fridge magnet is strong enough to overcome the pull of the entire Earth to pick a pin off the table. So what's happening here?

In M-Theory, the other 6 Dimensions are curled up tightly round themselves (best to think of them as in circles, but probably more like Calabi-Yau Manifolds and Orbifolds), so small we can't see or detect them, somewhere along the line of a Planck unit in size (a Planck unit = 10^-35m). By atoms vibrate through these extra dimensions, which explains general, observable, physics (such as action/reaction).

Now here's where it gets interesting. For years there were several camps of String Theorists arguing with each other as to who had the best theory and spending their time poking holes in each other's work. But they were working on the idea of 10 or fewer Dimensions. When it was proposed that there was another, 11th Dimension, then everything began to fall into place and they realised that most of their theories were actually complementary.
This 11th Dimension is the membrane that our Universe floats within. It is 1 trillionth of a millimetre in size, but it exists this distance from every point in the 3-Dimensional Universe.
With all these extra dimensions, it is thought that gravity leaks away through them - hence it's weakness on small scales (like with the fridge magnet). This also raised the possibility of parallel Universes. The 11th Dimension is not just be a flat sheet, but instead 2 (or more) membranes (which is what Eustrusca refered to above) co-existing with each other. Gravity seeps from the other membrane (or Universe) into ours. In the other membrane it is as strong as the other forces, but by the time it leaks into our Universe it's become much weaker. In this other membrane there may be other 3-dimensional Universes, sheets of energy, cynlindrical and looped membranes, all sorts.
The 11th Dimension not only had the membrane which was the bubble-like or sheet-like object, but it had a whole wealth of different branes of varying dimensions, unfortunately called pea branes. Each of these membranes was a possible other universe, making parallel universes possible again. These other universes could be right next to ours and we'd have no idea or awareness of them - yet gravity may be leaking through from their universe to ours.
Think of it as a piece of paper. Draw a dot at each end of the paper then fold it in half so the dots line up. Each dot is a Universe. Light can only travel along the length of the paper, so if our universe was one of those dots, we would never see the other universe - it being an incalcable distance away from ours (to the order of a trillion magnitude cm). Yet it's existing right next to us. Gravity doesn't follow light - it goes everywhere - so it can pass through the tiny space between the paper.
Now imagine that piece of paper being folded an infinite times, with a universe on each fold. That's the membrane.

So how does this explain the Big Bang?
The 11th Dimension isn't a nice tranquil place to live. It's a violent stormy sea where tsunamis of energy rippling across the membranes that exist within this dimension. The parallel universes roll through the 11 dimensional membrane like waves. Every so often (actually constantly, like every 10^-33 seconds according to some theories) these two 'parallel' universes collide within the membrane, which releases an enormous charge of energy that immediately forms into another universe. This universe may become like ours if the conditions of the initial collision is right. This helps to explain why there's 'clumps' of matter in our Universe - the membranes didn't intersect and collide at equal points. These clumps are important because without them gravity couldn't have taken hold and slowly drawn clumps together into bigger clumps and so on until we got the first stars and galaxies.

So M-Theory in effect does away with the point of singularity - it is the collision of two membranes which causes the release of energy.
Some physicists now think it could be theoretically possible to create a universe. It would not displace the universe around it even though it would grow tremendously. It would actually create its own space as it grows and in fact in a very short fraction of a second it would splice itself off completely from our Universe and evolve as an isolated closed universe growing to cosmic proportions without displacing any of the territory that we currently lay claim to. Let's hope they're right.


Sorry. I get a it carried away with this stuff. I hope it's helpful and understandable.

When I'm talking to people about the existance of God, they often ask me who created God. Cosmologists are in the same quandry when it comes to the big bang. How do they get out of the infinite regress issue?

One of the greatest problems I have with NS general is that with such a huge amount of Creationists vs Evolutionists threads, Big Bang Theory doesn't get much of a go. This, I believe, is a real pity because it is such a magnificent theory and without it Evolution is up the creek.

i'm sure people have already pointed this out, but evolutionary theory does not in any way, shape, or form depend upon the Big Bang theory.

One of the greatest problems I have with NS general is that with such a huge amount of Creationists vs Evolutionists threads, Big Bang Theory doesn't get much of a go. This, I believe, is a real pity because it is such a magnificent theory and without it Evolution is up the creek. So here is the Question: What do people think of the Big Bang theory?

And please, please, please, please, please, please do not turn this into an evolution thread.


"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him..." John 1: 1-3

Everything that physically exists was made/created by God.

M-Theory refers to what used to be Superstring theory. The M does stands for Membrane, but not in the way you are talking about.
The rest of your post was interesting, but the two sentences above are glaring errors on your part.

Don't make me find the link with the major string theorists talking and laughing about this. Nobody knows what the M stands for!

Come on, you should know that! :rolleyes:

Oh, might as well: proof in da pudding (www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3014_r_03.html).

In String Theory, the myriad of particle types is replaced by a single fundamental building block, a `string'.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! You're pushing all my buttons. This is one of my pet peeves...

The correct way to say the above sentence is "In String Theory, the myriad particle types..."

There's never any "of" anything after the word myriad.

The rest of your post was interesting, but the two sentences above are glaring errors on your part.

Don't make me find the link with the major string theorists talking and laughing about this. Nobody knows what the M stands for!

Come on, you should know that! :rolleyes:

Oh, might as well: proof in da pudding (www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3014_r_03.html).
I know, it could stand for Mystery, or Mother of all (Theories), or Monster of all (Theories). But I prefer Membrane, because it makes more sense than the rest (and I didn't want to get sidetracked). Physicists had such banal sense of humour.
Actually the worst are Mathematicians. Check out this 'humour' site:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/MathematicalHumor.html

I know, it could stand for Mystery, or Mother of all (Theories), or Monster of all (Theories). But I prefer Membrane, because it makes more sense than the rest (and I didn't want to get sidetracked). Physicists had such banal sense of humour.
Actually the worst are Mathematicians. Check out this 'humour' site:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/MathematicalHumor.html
:p Good link! I'm not trying to bust your balls, just letting you know that the best way to put that woul've been "In my opinion, the M stands for...", just cuz there's a lot of kiddies here who may be hearing about strings for the first time.
Don't want to set them off on the wrong centimeter.

(Okay, I suck at mathematical humor).

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! You're pushing all my buttons. This is one of my pet peeves...

The correct way to say the above sentence is "In String Theory, the myriad particle types..."

There's never any "of" anything after the word myriad.
When it is a noun, you can use 'of'. When it is an adjective, you don't.
So 'myriad types' is correct. However I think 'myriad of particle types' is also acceptable.
Best way to remember it:
myriad of letters (as a noun), but myriad letters (as an adjective).

I went on (uselessly) about myriad... oh boy. :rolleyes:
This is way too borderline hijacking to me.

Let's get back on topic, String Theory, big bangs, etc.
Good stuff.

Well, we are up to page 5, and that's usually when things go off-topic. So no harm done really.

When I'm talking to people about the existance of God, they often ask me who created God. Cosmologists are in the same quandry when it comes to the big bang. How do they get out of the infinite regress issue?
Singularities are not subject to casuality. In short, the Big Bang doesn't need a cause to happen. It just did.

The big bang or a like event appearantly happened. Whether it was THE big bang, and whether the description of the events is true, is still under investigation.

I personally doubt that the big bang was anything special, however. Just another bang in a cycle of bangs.

The big bang or a like event appearantly happened. Whether it was THE big bang, and whether the description of the events is true, is still under investigation.

I personally doubt that the big bang was anything special, however. Just another bang in a cycle of bangs.
Agreed. Eastern religions have no problem whatsoever with the direction physics has been taking in the last century. That's for sure.

I would suggest that anyone who doubts the truth of the Big Bang model should study until the point where he/she can take a PhD in physics. Then - and only then - should his/her opinion be taken seriously.

Having said that, I'm baffled by the fact that so many fellow Christians choose to disbelieve the Big Bang. The fact that the universe had a beginning, and that this beginning looked very much like a great flash of light, is seen by many physicists as a possible confirmation of the Christian story of Creation.

(By the way, the Big Bang was not an explosion; explosions are high speed chemical reactions. The Big Bang was a great big flash of light - since energy was created first, with matter coming only later.)

I would suggest that anyone who doubts the truth of the Big Bang model should study until the point where he/she can take a PhD in physics. Then - and only then - should his/her opinion be taken seriously.
That's coming off as terribly arrogant. I don't need a Ph.D. to tell you that 75% of all Psychology and Psychiatry is complete bullshit.

Having said that, I'm baffled by the fact that so many fellow Christians choose to disbelieve the Big Bang. The fact that the universe had a beginning, and that this beginning looked very much like a great flash of light, is seen by many physicists as a possible confirmation of the Christian story of Creation.
I've always wondered why Christians can't come to terms with this, as it does seem to verify the "light came first" Genesis story. :confused:
(By the way, the Big Bang was not an explosion; explosions are high speed chemical reactions. The Big Bang was a great big flash of light - since energy was created first, with matter coming only later.)
When most people use the term explosion, it's more like an analogy. I wouldn't be so anal, splitting hairs and such over symantics.

(By the way, the Big Bang was not an explosion; explosions are high speed chemical reactions. The Big Bang was a great big flash of light - since energy was created first, with matter coming only later.)

Two points

Firstly, and just to be pedantic, explosions do not have to be chemical. They are any process wherein violent and rapid expansion takes place, normally due to the relaease of thermal energy. This includes nuclear fission and fusion, neither of which are chemical. The Big Bang certainly fits the definition of an explosion.

Secondly, and more importantly, what is the difference between energy and matter? In the first nanoseconds of the universes history there wass only energy as it was too hot for matter to exist. Moments later this energy gave rise to the first matter, but these are just different states of the same stuff.

without it Evolution is up the creek.

you couldn't be more wrong

Two points

Firstly, and just to be pedantic, explosions do not have to be chemical. They are any process wherein violent and rapid expansion takes place, normally due to the relaease of thermal energy. This includes nuclear fission and fusion, neither of which are chemical. The Big Bang certainly fits the definition of an explosion.

Secondly, and more importantly, what is the difference between energy and matter? In the first nanoseconds of the universes history there wass only energy as it was too hot for matter to exist. Moments later this energy gave rise to the first matter, but these are just different states of the same stuff.
pWned! :p

I believe it, and that is all you need to know.

That's coming off as terribly arrogant. I don't need a Ph.D. to tell you that 75% of all Psychology and Psychiatry is complete bullshit.


No, but to be convincing and to be taken seriously it would help. :)

I agree with you anyway. Convincing or not.

righty,

The big bang theory is logically and scientifically sound. You get the odd fucktard who asks what was before the big bang, the point is there was nothing before it because the bb was an expansion in a large number of dimensional tracts, due to quatum entanglement only 4 of these actually expanded beyond a few nano metres in size one of these 4 is what we call "time" which began life with the rest so there was really nothing "before"

I believe it, and that is all you need to know.

It would help if we knew what this "it" was.

The big bang theory is something that has been debated for a long time. I think that the theory makes sense. If the “big bang” never happened then how did the solar system get to how it is today? There is no way to ever tell if it happened or not, but there is a ton of evidence supporting it.

Alien Born: Check your TG's.

It would help if we knew what this "it" was.


The point of this topic. The Big Bang Theory. How could you not know what I was talking about?

righty,

The big bang theory is logically and scientifically sound. You get the odd fucktard who asks what was before the big bang, the point is there was nothing before it because the bb was an expansion in a large number of dimensional tracts, due to quatum entanglement only 4 of these actually expanded beyond a few nano metres in size one of these 4 is what we call "time" which began life with the rest so there was really nothing "before"

First of all I put in bold a statement that I really didn't think was necessary. Give people a chance to wonder, regardless if you agree.

But anyway. Myself being a outspoken proponent of Creationism, I do nonetheless see some merit to the "point singularity" which secular scientists refer to as the "big bang."

I think, since the universe was so dense at it's inception, that therefore space-time must have allowed "time" as we perceive it to run much "faster", and "time" has been slowing down gradually as the universe expanded. This is why there is such confusion about the "age of the earth", universe et al.

For an analogy, I cite a perfectly spherical sponge. If you squeeze the sponge down close to a singularity, it takes less time to travel all the way across the sponge (in diameter.) Therefore if the dimension of space-time can be represented by a sponge, then when you release the sponge it would slowly expand until it took much longer to travel the entire diameter.

Due to our perception now of time being a speed (which may in fact be much slower then it was during the inception of our universe) that we can quantify, we base all of our measurements of the earth's progress on an erroneous perspective of time.

Consequently it is possible that there was a "long" period of intense activity that God presided over, until the introduction of the first two humans, at which point history became "recorded history" and we started to quantify everything for our own benefit.

The author of the Creation story asked God "How long did it take to make such and such?" And He truthfully responded, "Just a day" because it really only would be perceived as a day from an entity observing outside of the bounds of space-time, namely, God. Whereas, due to the density of of the universe, there was the effect of a million year's age in a span of a day.

Make any sense?

I wish I could provide you an online source for that but it was taught to me by two seperate physics professors in high school and college. Both times I thought it equally cool.

Singularities are not subject to casuality. In short, the Big Bang doesn't need a cause to happen. It just did.

Can I use the same argument about God?

First of all I put in bold a statement that I really didn't think was necessary. Give people a chance to wonder, regardless if you agree.

But anyway. Myself being a outspoken proponent of Creationism, I do nonetheless see some merit to the "point singularity" which secular scientists refer to as the "big bang."

Sorry that i ask (really sorry!), but I was wondering if Creationism (at least 'traditional' Creationism in the sense of claiming that Earth was only 6000 years old) and Big Bang wouldn't contradict each other? I mean, Big Bang was like 12-14 billion years ago, way long before the Earth even formed. I'm really curious you deal with that. :)

Sorry that i ask (really sorry!), but I was wondering if Creationism (at least 'traditional' Creationism in the sense of claiming that Earth was only 6000 years old) and Big Bang wouldn't contradict each other? I mean, Big Bang was like 12-14 billion years ago, way long before the Earth even formed. I'm really curious you deal with that. :)

Well, what I was saying that God is observing from outside the system, and has His own perception of time, and that INSIDE the system, space-time could be condensed in such a way that time elapsed much more rapidly, but if we look back on it from our perspective where space is much more spread out, it will only look like 10000 years or so.

Or you could also argue that time was running slower and that "billions of years worth of things" happened during a shorter period of time.

The main thrust of the explanation is to try to reconcile Biblical creation with the apparent effects of a Big Bang, namely time dilation and the universe becoming less dense.

I quite enjoyed this thread.:) It helped me get rid of some of my preconcieved conceptions. :cool:

Sorry that i ask (really sorry!), but I was wondering if Creationism (at least 'traditional' Creationism in the sense of claiming that Earth was only 6000 years old) and Big Bang wouldn't contradict each other? I mean, Big Bang was like 12-14 billion years ago, way long before the Earth even formed. I'm really curious you deal with that. :)

Not all creationists think the world is 6000 years old, even in the time of Buckland it wasn't the most acepted figure.

I abstain. That stuff is just WAY beyond our comprehension.

Can I use the same argument about God?
I'll give you credit in that neither theory can be proved or disproved at this moment in time.

What I really like though is the Pratchett, cosmic sneeze theory, kinda similar to the big bang with its explosive beginnings, but with the ending of the universe being marked by the coming of the great cosmic hankie to wipe up the mess.

Ahh yes, Discworld makes for a great and wonderful read....

Though I also enjoy that theory, I also am a fan of the big bang. It seems much more credible to me than some of the theories I've heard from certain people I'm not allowed to mention in this thread.

Remember the paperclip!

One of the greatest problems I have with NS general is that with such a huge amount of Creationists vs Evolutionists threads, Big Bang Theory doesn't get much of a go. This, I believe, is a real pity because it is such a magnificent theory and without it Evolution is up the creek. So here is the Question: What do people think of the Big Bang theory?

And please, please, please, please, please, please do not turn this into an evolution thread.
I don't know. Universe origins, by the very nature of it already having happened, cannot be proven. The best we can do is trying to come up with some ideas that explain the evidence around us. Big Bang theory is the best idea I've heard so far, but that doesn't make it true either. That simply means it's better then all the other ideas out there.

Why is it the best idea so far? Because there is evidence and mathematical models that support it, and they all seem to work pretty well. Creation isn't really a theory, because there's no evidence for it.

My belief is that any energy or singularity that existed before the explosion is a universe, and therefore the Big Bang is an important time in the history of the universe, not the beginning.

you ask me if Big Bang exists? HECK YES!!! and it is, and the republicans will kiss my ass for it, the prove that God exist. (Who created all that energy and put it there in the first place?

Well, personally I think that the current Republican administration has done wonders to establish Hawking's theories that are working to replace the Big Bang singularity theory with his Brane theory.

Nothing validates Hawking's belief that an infinitly dense object can emit mangled information like any speech by George W. Bush.

Sorry that i ask (really sorry!), but I was wondering if Creationism (at least 'traditional' Creationism in the sense of claiming that Earth was only 6000 years old) and Big Bang wouldn't contradict each other? I mean, Big Bang was like 12-14 billion years ago, way long before the Earth even formed. I'm really curious you deal with that. :)

Well the notion that God could have created anything in a "day" before there was a sun and an earth by which days would be measured is pretty silly.

"Day" is generally taken to mean an age of undefined time. Probably a very long time. That's why the Catholic's have finally admited that the Big Bang does not contradict the Bible. You know the world is in a sorry state when the Catholic Church is the liberal, intellectual voice of reason.

Well the notion that God could have created anything in a "day" before there was a sun and an earth by which days would be measured is pretty silly.

"Day" is generally taken to mean an age of undefined time. Probably a very long time. That's why the Catholic's have finally admited that the Big Bang does not contradict the Bible. You know the world is in a sorry state when the Catholic Church is the liberal, intellectual voice of reason.
Actually, I find that refreshing and hopeful. If the catholic church, the church with the worst history of repressing science and persecuting scientists, accepts science today, that doesn't give much credability to current churches that try to deny science. Of course, they'll take the science they like. The science that makes their cars, computers, lights and other pieces of modern technology work. To say that one branch of science is filled with with idiots and liars while another branch of science is not, is to be intellectually on VERY shaky ground, IMHO.

One of the greatest problems I have with NS general is that with such a huge amount of Creationists vs Evolutionists threads, Big Bang Theory doesn't get much of a go. This, I believe, is a real pity because it is such a magnificent theory and without it Evolution is up the creek. So here is the Question: What do people think of the Big Bang theory?

And please, please, please, please, please, please do not turn this into an evolution thread.

Well, the first think I have to say - although you've specifically said you don't want this to end up as an 'evolution thread', is HOW do you think evolution is 'up the creek' without Big Bang theory?

It doesn't matter how the world got here, or even where the first life came from... evolution just describes how a specific entity type might derive from another.

Regarding the Big Bang: I think it is only as valid to 'believe' in the Big Bang, as it is to 'believe' in god. Once you start subscribing to a specific code of belief (whether in big explosions, or mystic deities), you begin to lose scientific objectivity. You start to try to shape observation, to fit your theory.

I don't think that the Big Bang is a BAD idea, I just don't accept it as the only, or best explanation.

Personally, I prefer the idea of a Phoenix Universe... that expands until it reaches a point, then falls back in on itself... birthing a new universe from the ashes of the old.

Thus - there is never an end of time, nor a beginning... just a new version born from the old.

Well, the first think I have to say - although you've specifically said you don't want this to end up as an 'evolution thread', is HOW do you think evolution is 'up the creek' without Big Bang theory?

It doesn't matter how the world got here, or even where the first life came from... evolution just describes how a specific entity type might derive from another.

Regarding the Big Bang: I think it is only as valid to 'believe' in the Big Bang, as it is to 'believe' in god. Once you start subscribing to a specific code of belief (whether in big explosions, or mystic deities), you begin to lose scientific objectivity. You start to try to shape observation, to fit your theory.

I don't think that the Big Bang is a BAD idea, I just don't accept it as the only, or best explanation.

Personally, I prefer the idea of a Phoenix Universe... that expands until it reaches a point, then falls back in on itself... birthing a new universe from the ashes of the old.

Thus - there is never an end of time, nor a beginning... just a new version born from the old.
As far as I understand, Big Bang works with that. Big Bang theory doesn't say that there was a beginning of the universe, but that the universe simply explosively expanded from a singularity. Whether there was a universe before that singularity is not addressed in Big Bang, as far as I know. My understanding is that it only addresses the explosion itself.

BTW, I don't think Big Bang is just as valid as creation. There is evidence and mathematical models to support Big Bang. There is no evidence or ANYTHING to support creation.

As far as I understand, Big Bang works with that. Big Bang theory doesn't say that there was a beginning of the universe, but that the universe simply explosively expanded from a singularity. Whether there was a universe before that singularity is not addressed in Big Bang, as far as I know. My understanding is that it only addresses the explosion itself.

BTW, I don't think Big Bang is just as valid as creation. There is evidence and mathematical models to support Big Bang. There is no evidence or ANYTHING to support creation.

The 'model' I have heard for the Big Bang theory, and the variations on that theme... basically seem to imply that there was 'nothing' (in real terms) before the initiation of whatever process is argued to have started the 'Bang'... be it the sudden conversion of potential energy into kinetic, or whatever.

The Phoenix theory that I describe differs from any 'First Cause' definition, in that it disposes of the concept of a 'first' cause... instead, relying on the recycling of previous causes.

Regarding "Big Bang" versus "Creationism" - both have the SAME amount of evidence. What there IS, is more scientific evidence for the AFTERMATH of a 'Big Bang', that seems to imply that it is a probable model. But then, that same evidence DOESN'T prove that 'god' created the world with a 'big bang', or even, that he started the universe mid-flow, to LOOK like there had been a 'big bang'.

Since there is no way to know which possibility was true, and there is no concrete evidence of the actual INITIAL event itself - I think it safest to consider all as equally reliable. That is... there is no GOOD evidence for any of them.

Of course - my natural scientific tendencies lead me to see the rationality behind the scientific evidence that recommends the 'Big Bang' - but I cannot accept that model without amendment... that is, something to explain (scientifically) why the Big Bang is NOT just another 'spontaneous creation' story... the idea of a self-recycling universe satisfies that difficulty.

Well, the first think I have to say - although you've specifically said you don't want this to end up as an 'evolution thread', is HOW do you think evolution is 'up the creek' without Big Bang theory?

It doesn't matter how the world got here, or even where the first life came from... evolution just describes how a specific entity type might derive from another.

Regarding the Big Bang: I think it is only as valid to 'believe' in the Big Bang, as it is to 'believe' in god. Once you start subscribing to a specific code of belief (whether in big explosions, or mystic deities), you begin to lose scientific objectivity. You start to try to shape observation, to fit your theory.

I don't think that the Big Bang is a BAD idea, I just don't accept it as the only, or best explanation.

Personally, I prefer the idea of a Phoenix Universe... that expands until it reaches a point, then falls back in on itself... birthing a new universe from the ashes of the old.

Thus - there is never an end of time, nor a beginning... just a new version born from the old.

The reason I say that evolution is nothing without Big-Bang is that without a theory of how the universe got here, scientific creation theories are incomplete, even if they can explain life.

And just letting you know that the "Phoenix Universe" is simply a variation of the Big Bang model, the universe expands from a singularity, then stops, contracts into a singularity, then expands again. And this has been happening for eternity. The problem is that we cannot tell what happened "before" the big bang because it began with a singularity and General Relitivity points out the inadequacy of modern physics to explain the occurances on the "other sides" of singularities, just like we cant really tell whats on the "other side" of black holes.

The reason I say that evolution is nothing without Big-Bang is that without a theory of how the universe got here, scientific creation theories are incomplete, even if they can explain life.
Then you might as well that ANY scientific law is nothing without Big Bang theory. Beyond that, the two are not related at all.

The reason I say that evolution is nothing without Big-Bang is that without a theory of how the universe got here, scientific creation theories are incomplete, even if they can explain life.

And just letting you know that the "Phoenix Universe" is simply a variation of the Big Bang model, the universe expands from a singularity, then stops, contracts into a singularity, then expands again. And this has been happening for eternity. The problem is that we cannot tell what happened "before" the big bang because it began with a singularity and General Relitivity points out the inadequacy of modern physics to explain the occurances on the "other sides" of singularities, just like we cant really tell whats on the "other side" of black holes.

Well - the classic model of a Big Bang, relies on the idea that something comes from nothing.... or matter from energy... or kinetic from potential... or something of that like.

The Phoenix Universe doesn't ACTUALLY require that situation... not even the formation of a singluarity event.

All it requires is a critical mass... which would be much LIKE a singularity event....

The thing about evolution, though.. is that it doesn't INTEND to explain EVERYTHING... just the mechanism of changing life forms.

That's the difference between science and religion. Science is happy to explain the bits it can, and leave the rest of the page blank, and ADMIT that it doesn't know. Maybe offer a couple of ideas...

Religion claims to have all the answers.

What you perceive as a flaw... even to the extent that you beleive the one theory stands or falls on the existence or absence of the other... is really just observation of WHY science is NOT like religion.

The Big Bang could (one day) be PROVED true... and it would have NO EFFECT on the principle of evolution. The same applies if it were ever PROVED false.