The Big Bang: Did It Really Happen?

[webdesignunlimited 0]

Do you think the big bang took place, so many billions of years ago? I do, sort of, but when my teachers told me about it expanding to the size it is today in about 3 minutes, i thought, "What made it expand?". I mean, think about it. How did the singularity that was all the mass in the universe condensed into a point so small it didn't even have dimensions expand to something of infinite size?

Edited November 4, 2005 by microscopic^earthling (see edit history)

[minnieadkins 0]

The big bang theory is a theory that has no proof. Hard to discuss it I personally believe that there probably was a "bang". An exploding star or whatever, but what caused it is another discussion. I guess I'm more into religion and would just say that God was the one that caused the bang.

[akijikan 0]

Do you think the big bang took place, so many billions of years ago? I do, sort of, but when my teachers told me about it expanding to the size it is today in about 3 minutes, i thought, "What made it expand?". I mean, think about it. How did the singularity that was all the mass in the universe condensed into a point so small it didn't even have dimensions expand to something of infinite size?

1064325236[/snapback]

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.

 

What made it expand was what ever forces were holding it together in the first place went away. Physicists who study this say that for all the matter to be compressed into that point, there had to be a lot of energy and the temperatre would have ammounted to more than is measurable. They also say that the energy present was strong enough the four forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak).

 

The four forces are really out of scientific popularity, as things have gone more in favor of string theories.

 

One thing we'll never know is what happened before because all we can see is the big bang. Light traveling from the big bang reaches us now, so it is in a way looking into the past as we look at that light.

 

I think a more important question is not did the big bang happen, but is the "big crush" going to happen? Is the gravitational pull of all matter going to bring pull all the expanding galaxies back into a "reverse" big bang?

 

I say let the scientists figure it all out! LOL!

[iGuest 3]

Well there is a lot of controveresy over this topic and you must remember that it is a "theory" so there is no solid proof that it actually happened. Some may say God created the Universe like me or they may use scientic reasoning to prove the methods in which the universe was created but in the end who is to say what is right or wrong everyone is entitled to their own opinion. i dont know if you are interested but i think it has been proven that the moon is actually a part of the earth that broke off when the massive comet hit earth and eradicated all the dinosaurs.

[Jguy101 0]

Eh, I think it may have happened, but not on its own (as in, God caused it).

[derouge 0]

I personally can just not comprehend the Big Bang. I'm not an overly religious person, but I just cannot come to believe that stuff was just here from nowhere. Where did it come from? Why was it here? I just think that to rationalize it I need there to be a creator, a maker. Maybe that creator set up the Big Bang and let it go, stepped back and watched the Earth work. I believe that things such as evolution exist, but I also firmly believe that there is a God at work. Much beyond that doesn't really matter.

[PureHeart 0]

Do you think the big bang took place, so many billions of years ago? I do, sort of, but when my teachers told me about it expanding to the size it is today in about 3 minutes, i thought, "What made it expand?". I mean, think about it. How did the singularity that was all the mass in the universe condensed into a point so small it didn't even have dimensions expand to something of infinite size?

1064325236[/snapback]

No one know did it happen or not. Just there're many scientist think that it really happened. But they're still seeking for the answer about the history of this space.

[twitch 0]

Ok, please refrain from mentioning God. It may stir up trouble.Anyway. Recently, scientists now believe that there must have been several big bangs. Due to a new theory of inverted expansion. It sounds sort of strange something expanding inwards, but it makes sense if you think about it on a 3D level. This is the way I see it, take a an orange for example. At the top is your big bang. Then, it expands outwards, but whilst expanding from the top, it is contracting at the bottom. This shows that this universe is contantly moving, towards itself. (If you are confused now, then don't worry, most people are).Now, there is proof of the big bang, or something as major as it. The big bang did not create everything. In fact, it only created this universe. There are infinite more universes and we are by far probably the youngest (relatively speaking). Where is the proof? Background nutrinoes. Something that is exibeted as a constant flowing substance through matter. Scientists believe that these background nutrinoes that flow through everything are the reminisence of the big bang.

[andrwxsCOL 0]

Well, is a little difficult to said that big ban's happend but if you think is an big probability, that were like this. But in this point we enter to ask to us, what were befor the big bag, before of the gran explosion?. The Religion and the Science in all most all the time of the humanity present have been talk about this, and in my personal opinion the Science prove and will continue proving this kind of aspects, but always there will be a question about what were before this.? and the human in this part said that God was the creator of this. The Big ban is a perfect teory but we have also to think what happend before this.

[mitchellmckain 0]

Do you think the big bang took place, so many billions of years ago? I do, sort of, but when my teachers told me about it expanding to the size it is today in about 3 minutes, i thought, "What made it expand?". I mean, think about it. How did the singularity that was all the mass in the universe condensed into a point so small it didn't even have dimensions expand to something of infinite size?

1064325236[/snapback]

Who said it has infinite size? A recent estimate puts the size at least 156 billion light years accross. Older estimates of 10 to 15 billion light years is based on the age of the oldest visible stars, but this doesn't take expansion into account. The new evidence derives from objects 13.7 billion years old and taking expansion into account. They think these objects are at least 90% of the age of the universe so the universe could be bigger, but not by many orders of magnitude. (Do an internet search on the size of the universe). Sure all this is quite theoretical but point is, who said the universe has infinite size?

 

There is a theory of inflated expansion where it expanded very quickly (exponentially) in the early part of its expansion but I think that lasted about 300,000 years not 3 seconds, and the universe has continued to expand at a more normal yet increasing rate since then for another 10 to 20 billion years. Another part of this inflationary theory is that the universe was in some sort of high energy false vaccuum and it was the decay of this false vacuum that caused inflation while producing energy in the particulate form as a hot quark soup. It was after this that the universe cooled while expanding further to form matter as we know it today.

 

Why did the universe expand? Most cosmologists like Stephen Hawkings look for the answer in a quantum phenomena called spontaneous symmetry breaking. The basic idea is that an initial state can fall to a lower energy state by spontaneously breaking some kind of mathematical symmetry. In this case it could be the spontaneous breaking of the supersymmetry of supersymmetric string theories, which is why we find that symetry broken in the world we know today.

 

This theory is never meant as an explanation as to where the universe comes from. Physics doesn't try to answer such question. It only tries to explain physical measurements. The big bang was first developed to explain the measurement of the velocity with which all the galaxies we see are speeding away from each other. Next there was the measurement of the 4 degree background microwave radiation, which is explained by the theory that at some time in the past the universe was in a hot dense state. Inflation theory was developed to explain the large scale uniformity of the universe.

 

Logic can never find a beginning, because logic only goes from one truth to another or one supposition to another. It must start with an axiom, postulate or assumption taken on faith, and accepted until the conclusions which derive from it prove false. Whether it is the big bang or God we can always ask why and how such a thing is, was or came to be. The real decision between these two ideas has to do with what you want to explain. If you want to explain the mathematical results of physical measurements then the big bang is your best bet. If you looking for meaning, purpose and hope then God is the better bet, since very few people find any deep meaning for their lives in the mathematical equations of physics.

[Cassandra1405241487 0]

Most cosmologists like Stephen Hawkings look for the answer in a quantum phenomena called spontaneous symmetry breaking.  The basic idea is that an initial state can fall to a lower energy state by spontaneously breaking some kind of mathematical symmetry.

 

Doesn't the word "spontaneous" in this paragraph mean "We don't know the cause"? If Mr. Hawking really means that something happened in the universe without a cause, which is pretty much the everyday meaning of "spontaneous", isn't he in big trouble? For 2500 years the post-Aristotelean science which Mr. Hawking has been, well, hawking has been based on the unprovable assumption that everything has a natural cause. And now Hawking & Co. are saying that there was suddenly a loss of symmetry for no reason, and we're not even willing to say it outright? From a few remarks at the end of "A Short History", remarks which include some very obvious philosophical and linguistic fuzz, I gather that Mr. Hawking's opposition to the Judeo-Christian concept of the Creation is based on their need to postulate an event without a cause. Well....

 

And suppose that Mr. Hawking really means that there was a cause, but we don't know what it is (even though his use of the word "spontaneous", if that's really his language, is a problem). If you see an event in front of your eyes, it's not too much of an epistemological problem to say: Well, we don't know why or how it happened, but we all saw it, didn't we? On the other hand, when you're postulating something that you didn't see, to say "We don't know how or why it should have happened" is a big problem. One of the obvious possibilities is always: Well, maybe it didn't happen.

 

I think I'll go back to the first chapter of Genesis. It doesn't strain my credulity as much. At least it's pretty obviously what's called in Hebrew a mashal, poetry, if you like, and not cause-and-effect without a cause.

 

[/End of Rant]

[evought 0]

Do you think the big bang took place, so many billions of years ago? I do, sort of, but when my teachers told me about it expanding to the size it is today in about 3 minutes, i thought, "What made it expand?". I mean, think about it. How did the singularity that was all the mass in the universe condensed into a point so small it didn't even have dimensions expand to something of infinite size?

1064325236[/snapback]

Hawkings, in his book, _A Brief History of Time_ suggests that the Big Bang and the idea of expansion is just an artifact of how we see time. If you think in four dimesnions instead of two, and picture space/time as a big ball, then the pole of the ball is the "Big Bang". As you move toward the equator, with each slice o the ball representing an instant in time, you see the universe "expand". When you reach the equator, that is the "Little Whimper", from our point of view, the end of time.

 

Why doesn't the universe contract ater you pass the equator? As the universe expands, the amount of entropy or chaos also increases (2nd law of thermodynamics). When the universe contracts again after the half-way point, chaos/entropy decrease and the 2nd law of thermodynamics seems to go the other way. Our minds depend on the second law's direction to store information. When our brains store data, we create local order at the cost of more global disorder- entropy increases. Our minds can therefore only function when the 2nd law points to increasing disorder. Therefore, after the universe hits the halfway point, time flows backwards for us and we again *experience* it as Big Bang leading to Little Whimper.

 

For the most part, it seems that the universe does not really care about our concepts of space and time. There is a structure there and we try to understand it by talking about space and time, but the universe does not seem to really be structured that way. That is why physicists these days talk about space-like and time-like measurements. Penrose also heavily advocates the idea that much of the structure of space-time is created by our experience of the universe, rather than what is actually there. Our minds cannot understand certain structures and therefore we do not experience them.

[mitchellmckain 0]

I think I'll go back to the first chapter of Genesis.  It doesn't strain my credulity as much.  At least it's pretty obviously what's called in Hebrew a mashal, poetry, if you like, and not cause-and-effect without a cause.

 

Actually you should welcome this idea of being without a cause in physics. The thing you have to understand about physics is its very narrow view of the world. You see, physics only looks at the mathematical relationship between repeatable measureable quantities. I think, and famous physicists like Eddington agree with me, that it is absurd to think this view of the universe is all there is. Therefore if physics says that something has no cause, it really just means that there is no physical cause. It means there is no cause that can be expressed as a mathematical relationship between measurable quantities.

 

Doesn't the word "spontaneous" in this paragraph mean "We don't know the cause"?  If Mr. Hawking really means that something happened in the universe without a cause, which is pretty much the everyday meaning of "spontaneous", isn't he in big trouble?  For 2500 years the post-Aristotelean science which Mr. Hawking has been, well, hawking has been based on the unprovable assumption that everything has a natural cause.  And now Hawking & Co. are saying that there was suddenly a loss of symmetry for no reason, and we're not even willing to say it outright?  From a few remarks at the end of "A Short History", remarks which include some very obvious philosophical and linguistic fuzz, I gather that Mr. Hawking's opposition to the Judeo-Christian concept of the Creation is based on their need to postulate an event without a cause.  Well....

 

I think that spontaneous does means there is no physical cause. My first impression of Mr. Hawking suggests that he is a true disciple of Einstein and a determinist. However, unlike Einstein, he has digested and accepted quantum physics so I am not so sure. He does suggest that science is a better explanation of the origin of the universe than God, and that God is not needed to explain the universe any longer.

 

And suppose that Mr. Hawking really means that there was a cause, but we don't know what it is (even though his use of the word "spontaneous", if that's really his language, is a problem).  If you see an event in front of your eyes, it's not too much of an epistemological problem to say:  Well, we don't know why or how it happened, but we all saw it, didn't we?  On the other hand, when you're postulating something that you didn't see, to say "We don't know how or why it should have happened" is a big problem.  One of the obvious possibilities is always:  Well, maybe it didn't happen.

 

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. Quantum theory includes events called a wave collapse the results of which are purely random and without cause. Many physicists have resisted this conclusion strenuously, none more than Einstein. Many thought that the causes were simply unknown, this idea is called the hidden variable theory. But a scientist John Stewart Bell proved that if any such hidden variables existed then there was a inequality that should be obeyed by certain physical measurements. The experiments have been performed repeatably and the results are conclusively that the inequality is not obeyed which means that the hidden variables do not exits. So the causes are not simply unknown, they really do not exist.

 

But again all this is within the narrow view of causality and the world used by physics, so it is this narrow view of causality that fails in quantum physics. One way the results of the Bell inequality experiments are interpreted is to say that local realism is fails. In other words instead of throwing out determinism we could throw out reductionsism which says that reality can no longer be reduced to a sum of its parts. The most stubborn mechanistic (reductionist) determinists try to dodge these results by throwing out the limitation of the speed of light, but the majority of the scientific community does not take this possibility very seriously.

[twitch 0]

Hawkins and every othr scientist have been proven inaccurate or even incorrect on many occasions. We must step back and ask, can we actually say the current universe is so many light years in size, or do we have to live without an answer. I believe that too many scientists and mathematicians believe that they know the answer, but when working with the fourth-dimension, time and space, I don't think that normal measurement, theories and other standards should be taken effect.I do not believe that we know the true size of this universe, nor do we know as much as scientists say (e.g. if they say we know 70% of what is out there, I am inclined to say, no we don't). Not because I like disagreeing, but because deep down, I know we don't know.

[mitchellmckain 0]

Hawkins and every othr scientist have been proven inaccurate or even incorrect on many occasions. We must step back and ask, can we actually say the current universe is so many light years in size, or do we have to live without an answer. I believe that too many scientists and mathematicians believe that they know the answer, but when working with the fourth-dimension, time and space, I don't think that normal measurement, theories and other standards should be taken effect.

 

I do not believe that we know the true size of this universe, nor do we know as much as scientists say (e.g. if they say we know 70% of what is out there, I am inclined to say, no we don't). Not because I like disagreeing, but because deep down, I know we don't know.

1064326026[/snapback]

It all depends on what part of science you are talking about. Something on the frontier of science like cosmology and this estimate of the universe as being 156 billion light years accross is extremely tentative. You are not meant to take any scientists word for it. The best you can do is find out the reasoning behind this calculation and decide for yourself. However when it gets to a point that 95% of the scientific community which specialize in that subject area agrees on something then then you know it has been checked and rechecked and more importantly that new scientific advances have been made with its help. That is the point where disagreement with the conclusion in question begins to strain credulity.