• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How could first big-bang explode?

Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
ben d said:
I've not heard that big bang theory was a quantum event....can you explain the scientific basis of this part of the BB theory....seems odd?
Click to expand...
Look it up Ben, google 'Big Bang Theory'.
It's all there. Maybe ask your mummy.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
ben d said:
I looked and can't find a thing....explain it to everyone in your own words...I am familiar with quantum mechanics...
Click to expand...


After all - how could you possibly be familiar with quantum mechanics, and at the same time not understand that the BB was a quantum event? That doesn't make sense - just knowing what 'quantum' means would establish why the BB was a quantum event.

You say you looked, but can't find a thing - too many big words huh?
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
After all - how could you possibly be familiar with quantum mechanics, and at the same time not understand that the BB was a quantum event? That doesn't make sense - just knowing what 'quantum' means would establish why the BB was a quantum event.

You say you looked, but can't find a thing - too many big words huh?
Click to expand...
You are making it up Bunyip...what...the big bang was a collapse of some pre-existing universal virtual waveform.?..haha..:D
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
ben d said:
You are making it up Bunyip...what...the big bang was a collapse of some pre-existing universal virtual waveform.?..haha..:D
Click to expand...
Go and ask your mum Ben, she may be more interested. Ask her to start by reading out to you the definition of 'quantum'.
Then ask her if she can afford to send you to charm school
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
Go and ask your mum Ben, she may be more interested.
Click to expand...
My mum has moved on Bunyip...I am a very senior citizen...and besides...my mum was not into quantum mechanics...and I so love discussing the mystery of QM..tell us about your understanding of BBQM...:)
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
ben d said:
My mum has moved on Bunyip...I am a very senior citizen...and besides...my mum was not into quantum mechanics...and I so love discussing the mystery of QM..tell us about your understanding of BBQM...:)
Click to expand...
Wonderful, I suggest you start by reading a few science articles.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The chances are quite high that the BB was a manifestation of q.m., but we simply should not jump to that conclusion as the "final verdict" is far from being in.
 
ThePainefulTruth

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
paarsurrey said:
There must be some expanse for it to explode. How did this expanse come to exist?

Regards
Click to expand...

The length of the indivisibility of space, which includes the first instant of space is a known quantity, 10 to -35 meters. But knowing that still gives us no clue a to how it started. Time zero and space zero tell us nothing about how they came to be or what "preceded" them, if anything. BTW, my personal belief is that this is by design.
 
Rick O'Shez

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Bunyip said:
After all - how could you possibly be familiar with quantum mechanics, and at the same time not understand that the BB was a quantum event?
Click to expand...

I'd say that the big bang was a cosmological event. Quantum mechanics only applies at the sub-atomic level.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Spiny Norman said:
I'd say that the big bang was a cosmological event. Quantum mechanics only applies at the sub-atomic level.
Click to expand...
But that cosmological event may have started out with sub-atomic particles, which is why most cosmologists that I have read do not believe that if we're involved in a multiverse that all other universes would necessarily be like ours. Again, it is too early to tell as we way too little evidence one way or another.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
metis said:
But that cosmological event may have started out with sub-atomic particles, which is why most cosmologists that I have read do not believe that if we're involved in a multiverse that all other universes would necessarily be like ours. Again, it is too early to tell as we way too little evidence one way or another.
Click to expand...
No particles existed at the beginning of the big bang....they came later....therefore no quantum mechanics was in play....according to the theory....
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
ben d said:
No particles existed at the beginning of the big bang....they came later....therefore no quantum mechanics was in play....according to the theory....
Click to expand...
That's simply not known.

For example, one cosmological hypothesis has it that, while in singularity, different charges may have crossed paths, repelled, thus breaking their adhesive bonds, and the expansions began. Now, were these charges actually subatomic particles that we understand them to be today? Unlikely, but because of string theory, they hypothetically may be viewed in at least a similar vein.

Also, because of string theory, which granted is far from being established, q.m. still might well apply as some quantum physicists believe it to be hypothetically possible that a given string could change properties. Indeed, we have even seen this happen with some current-day subatomic particles.

Nothing is simple here, and making any kind of definitive statements are prone to error. Best to start out with words like "Maybe...".
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
metis said:
That's simply not known.

For example, one cosmological hypothesis has it that, while in singularity, different charges may have crossed paths, repelled, thus breaking their adhesive bonds, and the expansions began. Now, were these charges actually subatomic particles that we understand them to be today? Unlikely, but because of string theory, they hypothetically may be viewed in at least a similar vein.

Also, because of string theory, which granted is far from being established, q.m. still might well apply as some quantum physicists believe it to be hypothetically possible that a given string could change properties. Indeed, we have even seen this happen with some current-day subatomic particles.

Nothing is simple here, and making any kind of definitive statements are prone to error. Best to start out with words like "Maybe...".
Click to expand...
No...according to the theory, the particles came after....

BIG BANG TIMELINE

The universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the universe will ever hold. For an incomprehensibly small fraction of a second, the universe is an infinitely dense, hot fireball. The prevailing theory describes a peculiar form of energy that can suddenly push out the fabric of space. At 10-35 to 10-33 seconds a runaway process called "Inflation" causes a vast expansion of space filled with this energy. The inflationary period is stopped only when this energy is transformed into matter and energy as we know it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top