Honesty Rocks! truth rules.

The Big Bang: Did It Really Happen?

HOME      >>       Science and Technology

YudzzY

but what actually caused the big bang to happen? do you guys think that one day maybe we will get the answer? and do you think that the calamities nowadays, like the tsunami and cyclones in usa and everywhere, a general imbalance in the world is related to this big bang, like the effect is taking another side?


scherzi

The energy of the cyclones and hurricanes, and the dispersion of the energy casued by the deaths is irrelevant if compared with the Big Bang. It can be said that is equal to zero. If the whole earth explodes, the total energy should be still equal to zero if compared with the big bang.I'd say almost zero, but that "altmost" should be something like one billion part of a sand particle in the whole galaxy for example. Maybe ten billion or maybe more.I read about the "equator" of the Universe expansion in a previous message. That equator is the total mass of the Universe.If the Universe had a mass enough to stop the expansion totally, it would cause the opposite effect, a Big Crunch; and if the initial conditions of the Universe were the same that the Big Bang, perhaps the Universe could explode again.By the other way, the big bang doesn't has to have a cause. The Universe is not subjugated to human mind and its rules.


Logan Deathbringer

The Big Bang doesn't need a specific cause.

What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

From: This link

Strictly speaking, you could say the creation of our universe is a total accident - in a beautiful way. As for the cyclones, hurricanes and tsunamis - these could all be explained with modern science. Cyclones and hurricanes are formed by low pressure systems in the atmosphere and tsunamis are caused by earthquakes offshore in the ocean. If there are any side effects of the Big Bang theory, that would indeed be the 'Big Crunch' as mentioned by scherzi. The energy generated by hurricanes and typhoons is nowhere close to the Big Bang *even if it did happen*

ArmTheMob

Well I am a Christian.  You might think I would say no, but you would be surprised.  In my eyes, I think that "God" could have created the universe so that it looks like there was a big bang.

 

I've heard the same theory before but that's nonsense. It completely goes against the bible and you are twisting it completely out of context. You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in god and the way the bible says the universe was created or you don't believe in god and don't buy the bibles explanation on how the universe was created. The bible is the only supposed proof of god so to deny its truth denies the existence of god.

 

I've heard another explanation. According to Steven Hawkings calculations, when suns explode they create black holes because of the immense gravity the sun has. The whole universe will slowly turn into a bunch of black holes eating up everything. Slowly they will all combine into one huge black hole. The black hole will slowly pull everything into it. It will have so much gravity nothing will be out of reach. Then the theories start again. Some people think this is the cycle of the universe. After the whole universe gets pulled in the black hole will explode or implode creating the big bang and everything will start over again.

 

Makes sense huh?


scherzi

The Big Bang doesn't need a specific cause.

From: This link

 

Strictly speaking, you could say the creation of our universe is a total accident - in a beautiful way.  As for the cyclones, hurricanes and tsunamis - these could all be explained with modern science.  Cyclones and hurricanes are formed by low pressure systems in the atmosphere and tsunamis are caused by earthquakes offshore in the ocean.  If there are any side effects of the Big Bang theory, that would indeed be the 'Big Crunch' as mentioned by scherzi.  The energy generated by hurricanes and typhoons is nowhere close to the Big Bang *even if it did happen*

1064327598[/snapback]


When the Church tried to explain that the Earth was the center of the universe, they used to say that even though all the Universe spinned around the Earth, God did that turn in some way that it seemed that the Earth was not the center of the Universe (because ancient astronomers could observe how the movement of the celestial objects refuted the Church's postulated). Besides, they said that the angels were the cause of that movement.

 

So it's the same to say that the big bang is caused by God but God wants us to watch that is a natural phenomenon. Even if it could be true it isn't at all a good conclusion since you haven't even a proof or trace of God itself.

 

Let's say that it's begining to rain. A raindrop falls onto your hand. Did you said that was God who throw it from sky but it seems done by water condensation?

 

Then in order to know the properties of the rain phenomenon, we couldn't explain them without knowing before the characteristic features of God and measure him.

 

If God produced the big bang, what about radiations? Why does gravity stop the expansion? That expansion shouldn't have produced any residual energy, since the causing energy came from God.

 

I think God and religions in general are good for humankind. Accepting the relevance of the religious fact, we must consider that if you were born alone in the deepest forest, you woul'd able to observe the Nature but surely you won't believe in God, but in an anthropomorphic nature trying to compare the reality with your own mental reality and the way you experience the life.

 

I could go on with tons of definitions and ideas to reach the same conclusion. I think this ones are enough.

 

I am not saying that God is a fake. Only that we cannot observe the Nature thinking in God to explain it. There is no way out.


scherzi

The previous message was in response of "God did the big bang", not to the message quoted.


ArmTheMob

The subject is subject to change.


Cassandra1405241487

By the other way, the big bang doesn't has to have a cause. The Universe is not subjugated to human mind and its rules.

You seem to be saying that the big bang doesn't need a cause because causality is just a demand of human logic, to which the big bang is not subject. Well, in that case, nothing which has happened since - except perhaps human acts - needs a cause either. On that basis, there's no reason to make a distinction between the big bang and anything else.

Cassandra1405241487

Quantum physics brought an end to the classical era of physics (you seem to be describing) where everything was thought to have a (physical) cause.

 

The problem is that I don't believe that the philosophy behind quantum physics is completely honest. Even more than the degree to which it's based on measurement, physics is based on the idea of rigidly recurring patterns. These patterns are assumed to be significant because they are assumed to be required: B will always follow A because B is caused by A, as its sufficient cause. If the idea of causality breaks down anywhere, causality has lost its human significance: if it doesn't have to exist everywhere, how do we know where it does exist? As Hume pointed out, we can't see it. We assume that just as causality gives significance to the pattern, the pattern is evidence for causality.

 

Now some of the quantumists are telling us that causality exists only above a certain scale. Things sometimes have necessary causes. Once the reciprocal link between pattern and causality has broken down somewhere, and we can no longer assume that everything has a cause, how can we assume that there are any laws at all? Perhaps everything which we have seen and measured up to now is like the run of a thousand heads which will happen if we toss a coin long enough. In that case, all of science is pointless.

 

Yet the quantumists continue to tell us that on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays (or when things are big enough) everthing has a cause, and on the other days of the week (or below a certain scale), pure randomness is permitted. And we have to take their word for it because most of them can see the solutions to differential equations faster than most of us.

 

Hmm....


xboxrulz1405241485

ArmTheMob, I can just tell you that there are more proof of the big bang theory than God, others may argue, but the point here I'm telling you, is that no matter how the universe is actually created, there was a bang or several bangs anyways. It has been proven that there are "pure" hydrogen solar systems found on the edge of the solar system (the oldest stars ever), in order to get that, it must of came from a gigantic ball of hydrogen that blew itself up. Which, in the Big Bang Theory, stated that the most primitive element, which is hydrogen, exploded cause a big bang and the smaller pieces of the elements fused together and created the first solar systems, galaxy and etc. That's why our solar system has pieces of hydrogen to fuel our sun.xboxrulz


mitchellmckain

Cassandra, if you are arguing against Hawking's claim that the universe doen't need a cause, then I agree with your conclusion but not your reasons.

 

The problem is that I don't believe that the philosophy behind quantum physics is completely honest.  Even more than the degree to which it's based on measurement, physics is based on the idea of rigidly recurring patterns.  These patterns are assumed to be significant because they are assumed to be required:  B will always follow A because B is caused by A, as its sufficient cause. 

 


It is not the philosophy behind quantum physics that you want to look at but the philosophy that derives from it. What is behind quantum physics is the methodology of science not a philosophy. The point is really that quantum physics reveals the limitations of physics itself, just as Godel's proof revealed the limitations of logic and mathematics. This is why so many physicists like Einstein have had such a hard time accepting quantum physics. Physics just studies the mathematical relationship between measurable quanties. The question you have to ask is whether this can be complete description of reality.

 

If the idea of causality breaks down anywhere, causality has lost its human significance: if it doesn't have to exist everywhere, how do we know where it does exist?  As Hume pointed out, we can't see it.  We assume that just as causality gives significance to the pattern, the pattern is evidence for causality.

 


I can understand why you want to defend causality, because causality reaches beyond just physics. But the question you have to ask is whether the limited idea of causality that functions in physics is the only kind of causality. Because if you accept that it is then the materialistic determinists will have you over a barrel. Consider what is the cause of your actions? According to the materialistic determinist the ultimate cause of your actions are the initial conditions of the universe.

Now some of the quantumists are telling us that causality exists only above a certain scale.  Things sometimes have necessary causes.  Once the reciprocal link between pattern and causality has broken down somewhere, and we can no longer assume that everything has a cause, how can we assume that there are any laws at all?  Perhaps everything which we have seen and measured up to now is like the run of a thousand heads which will happen if we toss a coin long enough.  In that case, all of science is pointless.

 

You know when physicists concede that the universe is finite, one might be tempted to ask what is beyond those limits. But the physicist will tell you that there are no boundaries of the universe to which such a question could apply. Yet in quantum physics that boundary is right there staring us in the face. When quantum physics says causality only applies above a certain scale it is describing a boundary. It is saying that the deterministic mathematical relationships only go so far and no farther, and that is a boundary about which you can ask what is on the other side, for the limits of physics are not the limits of our mind. Perhaps there are causes which cannot be described by mathematical equations. What do you think? These limits described by quantum physics does not make science pointless because the physics does work within those limits and works very well indeed. It does enable us to predict a great many things. It just cannot predict absolutely everything.

And we have to take their word for it because most of them can see the solutions to differential equations faster than most of us.

 

No you do not. That is the great thing about science. Nobody has to take anybody's word for anything. That is its great advantage over things like religion. Everything physics says has to be such that anybody can follow the procedure described to see it for oneself. You just have to be careful when a physicists starts telling you what means, because at that point he has stopped doing physics and is doing philosophy.

xboxrulz1405241485

well, quantum physics, hmmm... I believe it because they have actually got a computer that calculates in quantum mode. Instead of using 0s and 1s, they use qubits which calculates 0 or 1 or 01 or 10 at the same instance.xboxrulz


Sarah81

I'm not a science-minded person. I understand the basic idea behind the Big Bang, but I definitely can't explain it.I'm a Christian, so I believe that God created the universe. One of my theories (just like the Big Bang, it can't be proven one way or another - but it's nice to think about) is that when God started speaking the universe into existence, the results were so phenomenally huge and fast that something did indeed go "BANG!" - and I imagine it was pretty loud.


singular

hi,
this is a nice topic :P

But think of this, something had to have created the universe and life, the big bang you may say, but what created the big bang, god? Well what created god? Everything must fall into exsistance somehow...


do men really able to comprehend everything?
lots of time, we saw human tend to "able to understand everything", but the reality is, we r just a small little tiny human. wat makes us think that we are able to think "wat created God, where is God from and etc"?

eg. could u imagine the greatest number or the smallest number?, if u can't imagine that, it is like u can't imagine the greatness of God.

eg. could u imagine a color which is not a color?

all these are beyond us.

when we use the word "God", it must have all nice and good qualities.
eg. u wouldn't pray a God whom is weak ... right !! :P

so, God must be the Greatest. God must be able to control everything, and do everything God wants. God knows everything, otherwise, the qualities of God is defected and thus not a God and not worthy to be prayed.

since God controls everything, so, all the meaning of words resides on God.
usually we heard people saying things like, "God can't create a wall which God cannot jumps". well, this statement is beyond our mind capability to be able to comprehend.
ok, we break the statement, God cannot create a wall,
let say God created a wall which could make God cannot jumps,
this means, the creator of the wall is greater than God (because the wall creator could make God cannot jumps over), but the creator is God itself, so all the glory sends to God back. (i don't know if u could able to see through my explanation)

just my 2cents :P;)

mitchellmckain

well, quantum physics, hmmm... I believe it because they have actually got a computer that calculates in quantum mode. Instead of using 0s and 1s, they use qubits which calculates 0 or 1 or 01 or 10 at the same instance.

 

xboxrulz

1064328628[/snapback]

I am a Christian, a physics instructor and a bit of a philosopher (and theologian) as well (I have a 3 year masters degree from a theological seminary). I love the Bible but I do not think it is intendened to be a precise description of how God created the universe (after all that is not exactly knowledge which we need to have, let alone understand). Frankly I don't buy the idea of a god who has powers like the witch in "Bewitched" or the genie in "I dream of genie" where you wiggle your nose or make a wish and things just appear. This is a childish idea of magic where something more powerful and knowlegeble does all the real work for you somehow.

 

I am not saying that God could not make something appear, but that if he did it would be more a matter of him supplying the required energy and giving it the proper form according to his knowlege and know how. I also think that his creation of the world was not something anywhere near as trivial as that. Have you heard the conundrum, "can God make a log so heavy that even He cannot lift it?" Well I think that His creation of the world was more of something like this. I think God's aim was to create something separate and independent that he did not control nor was able to predict. Anything else would have been boring and pointless. What I am talking about is free will or as I like to put it, creating life. I think the image of God simply breating life into us does not come close to the difficulty involved in creating life. In fact, I think that this entire universe in all its complexity was all a part of that one simple goal, to create life.


Cassandra1405241487

I believe it because they have actually got a computer that calculates in quantum mode. Instead of using 0s and 1s, they use qubits which calculates 0 or 1 or 01 or 10 at the same instance.

Please give the URL of a serious academic or professional resource which says that they have something which is close to what a normal person would call a computer. If I'm not mistaken, what they've got is something which is not even quite a proof of principle, and which handles only one or two particles.

In any case, with all due respect, I'm not sure that the 'truth' of quantum physics was the question here; if I'm not mistaken, the question was the cultural significance of quantum physics. Is it what we have traditionally called science, or is it better compared to the wild syllogism-grinding of the collapsing Scholastic system in the Fourteenth Century C.E.?

Cassandra1405241487

What is behind quantum physics is the methodology of science not a philosophy.

 

I'm not sure that this is true. For 2500 years it was assumed that the methodology of science would be based on common sense, and that science would be based on cocepts which were intuitively meaningful. Now, we are presented with concepts which have no everyday meaning, and no parallel in our logic: the superposition of states, action at a distance, etc. Why should we call this by the same name as what has always been called science? Why should we assume that it has the same importance for us?

 

I have the feeling that you are assuming that just because science has traditionally given importance to the concepts of measurement and objective reproducibility, then anything which give importance to the concepts of measurement and objective reproducibility should be called by the same name. I see no logical necessity for such an assumption, and have not yet seen any evidence for it.

 

No you do not.  That is the great thing about science.  Nobody has to take anybody's word for anything.  That is its great advantage over things like religion.  Everything physics says has to be such that anybody can follow the procedure described to see it for oneself.

 

No, not everyone can follow the procedure; that's just the point. It could be that there's nothing inherent in the procedure which prevents any human being from following it, but the people who use these procedures, and who talk publicly about science, know very well that most people cannot follow the procedures because they don't know enough mathematics, and may not be intelligent enough. They expect the vast majority of the population, the people whose resources are going to be used for this research and whose lives are going to be influenced by decisions based on this research, to accept the structure on pure faith.

 

In fact, it is very rare that even people in the same field go through the derivations line by line. One assumes, i.e, takes on faith, that if a serious journal published the results that somebody else, perhaps the reviewers for the journal, did go through it line by line. This is true even of the most accepted, traditional, and obvious scientific results. Have you personally ever done experiments to evaluate the concept of spontaneous generation, or the existence of phlogiston, or do you assume that they are nonsense because you have always been told by someone else that someone else did the experiments, and told by someone else the history of the mistake.

By the way, that comment of mine was not intended to be taken literally in any case; it was meant to be sarcastic, and a yet another dig at the honesty of the science salesmen. Imagine an appropriate smiley after it.


mitchellmckain

I am going to change the order of statements your post to deal with the most important points first.

 

In fact, it is very rare that even people in the same field go through the derivations line by line.  One assumes, i.e, takes on faith, that if a serious journal published the results that somebody else, perhaps the reviewers for the journal, did go through it line by line.  This is true even of the most accepted, traditional, and obvious scientific results.  Have you personally ever done experiments to evaluate the concept of spontaneous generation, or the existence of phlogiston, or do you assume that they are nonsense because you have always been told by someone else that someone else did the experiments, and told by someone else the history of the mistake.

 

Of course. One cannot live without faith.

 

The point is that everything important is checked up on, usually sooner rather than later, because every advance lays a foundation for further developments. As soon as a discovery is announced proffessors and researchers are all over it looking for further research opportunities. They have to confirm the previous result in order to understand what it takes to make further progress. I don't have to check everthing personally all I have to do is read about further progress being made on the topic by different groups.

 

If something is so uninteresting that only one group of scientists are working on it then of course this dynamic is not operational.

 

No, not everyone can follow the procedure; that's just the point.  It could be that there's nothing inherent in the procedure which prevents any human being from following it, but the people who use these procedures, and who talk publicly about science, know very well that most people cannot follow the procedures because they don't know enough mathematics, and may not be intelligent enough.  They expect the vast majority of the population, the people whose resources are going to be used for this research and whose lives are going to be influenced by decisions based on this research, to accept the structure on pure faith.

 

They do not expect any such thing. People ask them to explain what they are doing in the ill suited language of english (or any other language that is not mathematics) and the do the best they can. People may take this on faith and bandy it about as if they understood it. But scientists do not expect this, they ignore it.

 

Besides I deny and challenge your claim that not everyone can follow the proceedure. They can if they want, it just takes more work that they are willing do. We make choices about what is important and we want to do with our life. I don't think prevarication about this is honest. For example, I finally decided that research was not my bag and after attempting two PHD projects in theoretical physics lost interest and chose to do something else. Just because you don't do something doen't mean you can't. I have a female cousin who switched careers from coal miner to lawyer (with a law degree) to minister. The only person that you can truly judge is incapable of something is yourself and your judgement is the main reason why you cannot do it.

 

I am not denying that people have different abilities but many of these abilities can change and it is what you do with what you have that counts anyway. Anyone can do math because it is a technique for extending you innate abilities with a pencil and paper. Whether you want to or not is a different matter. I don't play football worth a darn and I certainly do not have the build for it. But it doesn't mean I can't. I willingly admit I have no desire.

 

I'm not sure that this is true.  For 2500 years it was assumed that the methodology of science would be based on common sense, and that science would be based on cocepts which were intuitively meaningful.  Now, we are presented with concepts which have no everyday meaning, and no parallel in our logic:  the superposition of states, action at a distance, etc.  Why should we call this by the same name as what has always been called science?  Why should we assume that it has the same importance for us?

 

Sorry but you have some real misconceptions here. Science is not and never was based on common sense. Physics at least is pretty simple. It is about discovering the mathematical relationships between measurable quantities. That is all it has ever been about. All these words are from attempts to describe what they are doing in english. Some people find these descriptions enjoyable and so there is a market for it. Everyone has to decide what is important for them. Doing what you assume you ought to do without deciding this for yourself is a sure recipe for meaningless life.

I have the feeling that you are assuming that just because science has traditionally given importance to the concepts of measurement and objective reproducibility, then anything which give importance to the concepts of measurement and objective reproducibility should be called by the same name.  I see no logical necessity for such an assumption, and have not yet seen any evidence for it.

 

I see no need to assume the obvious. It is only natural to assume that playing football will involve the use of ball. People may want to appropriate the term science for their activities in order to steal its authority like an underhanded politician but it inevitable that the ruse will eventually be revealed for the rhetoric it really is.

By the way, that comment of mine was not intended to be taken literally in any case; it was meant to be sarcastic, and a yet another dig at the honesty of the science salesmen.  Imagine an appropriate smiley after it.

 

What comment?

Cassandra1405241487

Sorry but you have some real misconceptions here.

Funny. If I had wanted to say something like that, I probably would have said something like 'Sorry, but I think that you have some real misconceptions here.' But of course, people belong to very different cultures, and not everyone has the ability to even think of even a remote possibility that 'Maybe he is right and I am wrong. Maybe I shoud think about it.'

 

Science is not and never was based on common sense.

Why do I have the impression that some people talk about the history of science, and what never was, without having read extensively in either Aristotle or Newton? But then, perhaps Newton's mechanics is not science.

 

That is all it has ever been about.

I wish that I had already lived long enough, and had enough time, to have been able to have read absolutely all of the important works in the history of physics, so that I could say what absolutely never happened.

 

All of this talk about the history of science reminds me of something Maimonides wrote in his commentary on Hippocrates, though I'm not sure what the connection is: ' The less a person knows about a subject, the more he is sure of himself, the more quickly he answers questions about it, and the more he in fact wants to answer; the more he knows about it, the less sure of himself he is, the less quickly he answers, and the less he wants to answer at all.'

 

But then, Hippocrates really doesn't have much to do with the history of science, and Maimonides' commentary on him even less so.


mitchellmckain

Funny.  If I had wanted to say something like that, I probably would have said something like 'Sorry, but I think that you have some real misconceptions here.'  But of course, people belong to very different cultures, and not everyone has the ability to even think of even a remote possibility that 'Maybe he is right and I am wrong.  Maybe I shoud think about it.'

Why do I have the impression that some people talk about the history of science, and what never was, without having read extensively in either Aristotle or Newton?  But then, perhaps Newton's mechanics is not science.

I wish that I had already lived long enough, and had enough time, to have been able to have read absolutely all of the important works in the history of physics, so that I could say what  absolutely never happened.

 

Sorry you took offense. None was intended. But until fairly recently a lot of what you were talking about was called natural philosophy. I admit I have a one sided point of view because the only science I took part in was physics and now I am a physics educator.

 

You may have a really valid point when it comes to the non-physical sciences, who have attempted to adopt perhaps excessively mathematical methods in emulation of physics to deal with topics to which this approach may be less suitable. This focus of physics on the mathematical relationship between measurable quantities was a shift that began with Galileo and became increasingly solidified through to the 20th Century.

 

I applaud and make much of this restriction of the topic of physics because I think it is the key to its sucess in the enormous contributions it has made to technology. My excessive identification of the word "science" with this definition of physics is a reaction to the efforts of many people (typically atheists) to piggyback their ideas on what they think science is in order to add the weight of this technological contibution to their side of the argument. This clear and restrictive definition of physics makes it clear where the authority of physics ends and helps to block the misuse of physics in rhetoric.

 

All of this talk about the history of science reminds me of something Maimonides wrote in his commentary on Hippocrates, though I'm not sure what the connection is: ' The less a person knows about a subject, the more he is sure of himself, the more quickly he answers questions about it, and the more he in fact wants to answer; the more he knows about it, the less sure of himself he is, the less quickly he answers, and the less he wants to answer at all.'

 

But then, Hippocrates really doesn't have much to do with the history of  science, and Maimonides' commentary on him even less so.

 


Touche. But if we are talking about the meaning of words. The only certainty here is my certainty about meaning of the words I use.