How could first big-bang explode?

[Ben Dhyan]

It wouldn't. It would just be considered a subatomic particle, because it is a subatomic particle. Why would you imagine it would be considered a part of an atom? You are talking about a time before the first atom aren't you? Subatomic particles existed before the first atom - not sure what has you so confused about that. Or why you imagine atoms had to exist before the things that atoms are made of existed - seems totally backwards.

Because the particles were all free from any atomic bonding...think of them as just being a part of a primordial cosmic soup...... sub atomic particles are bound...

 

[Bunyip]

Because the particles were all free from any atomic bonding...think of them as just being a part of a primordial cosmic soup...... sub atomic particles are bound...

No, any particle smaller than an atom is a........SUBatomic particle. Whether it is bound or not. Subatomic particles are any particles smaller than an atom.

Any particle smaller than a hydrogen atom is by definition subatomic.

Which is of course why the BB is a quantum event.

 

[Bunyip]

Ben d

Do yourself a favour and check out if any of the particles you are referring to are classified as subatomic. You will find that all of the particles that existed prior to the first hydrogen atom are by definition subatomic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, any particle smaller than an atom is a........SUBatomic particle. Whether it is bound or not. Subatomic particles are any particles smaller than an atom.

Any particle smaller than a hydrogen atom is by definition subatomic.

Which is of course why the BB is a quantum event.

You are embarrassing yourself more with each post...nonsense...neutrinos are particles smaller than an atom and are not sub atomic particles...

 

[Bunyip]

You are embarrassing yourself more with each post...nonsense...neutrinos are particles smaller than an atom and are not sub atomic particles...

Neutrinos are subatomic particles buddy.

 

[Bunyip]

All About Neutrinos - IceCube - University of Wisconsin–Madison

All About Neutrinos

Neutrinos are subatomic particles produced by the decay of radioactive elements and are elementary particles that lack an electric charge, or, as F. Reines

 

[FearGod]

Who said it can't be God?

That means disbelieving in God is just a blind faith.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Neutrinos are subatomic particles buddy.

Ok...my turn to be embarrassed...the penny finally dropped....sub atomic in this sense and the sense you have been using it as that of size...sub meaning smaller than.....I've been using it in the sense of being a sub part of the atom ...

 

[Bunyip]

Ok...my turn to be embarrassed...the penny finally dropped....sub atomic in this sense and the sense you have been using it as that of size...sub meaning smaller than..

Yes Ben, that's because that is the way physicists have employed that prefix in this case.

...I've been using it in the sense of being a sub part of the atom ...

Bingo. So now you understand that the BB was a quantum event right?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Bingo. So now you understand that the BB was a quantum event right?

No...I had already agreed that the quantum fluctuation phase where particles came into existence was quantum mechanics....it is the big bang event at time zero and the 'gushing' forth of energy before the space had expanded and cooled sufficiently to allow energy conversion to particle that I also exclude as being quantum mechanics...

However we have beat that to death already and since there is so much we do not know about this brief phase...it's moot to argue anymore...

I will think of something else wrt big bang to debate with you...how about the big bang event time zero we've touched upon before...leave it with me.....

 

[Bunyip]

No...I had already agreed that the quantum fluctuation phase where particles came into existence was quantum mechanics...

No Ben, you denied that. You said that those particles were not subatomic particles, therefore it was not QM.

it is the big bang event at time zero and the 'gushing' forth of energy before the space had expanded and cooled sufficiently to allow energy conversion to particle that I also exclude as being quantum mechanics...

However we have beat that to death already and since there is so much we do not know about this brief phase...it's moot to argue anymore...

I will think of something else wrt big bang to debate with you...how about the big bang event time zero we've touched upon before...leave it with me.....

I wouldn't bother Ben, it's just a waste of time. That entire exchange relied on your inability to grasp what the prefix 'sub' means.

And now that you admit the BB begins with a quantum event - and cause and effect do not apply at the quantum scale, your entire position is invalidated, anyway.

 

[Neo Deist]

There must be some expanse for it to explode. How did this expanse come to exist?

Regards

God snapped His fingers.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No Ben, you denied that. You said that those particles were not subatomic particles, therefore it was not QM.
I wouldn't bother Ben, it's just a waste of time. That entire exchange relied on your inability to grasp what the prefix 'sub' means.

And now that you admit the BB begins with a quantum event - and cause and effect do not apply at the quantum scale, your entire position is invalidated, anyway.

No, you are wrong still.... I said in post #375...."You can't have quantum fluctuations before you have a quantum vacuum....the energy in the expanding space has to cool to a certain level before it can convert to particles... The quantum fluctuations occur at the same times as particle formation...not before... There were no quantum vacuum fluctuations before this....the big bang event itself was not quantum mechanical ...."

This is still my position, nothing has changed....once the quantum vacuum is cool enough for particles to form...then the quantum effect is taking place...not before... It makes no difference that I had previously been working on the assumption that the particles had to be a part of the atom to be considered sub atomic, as it turns out....all the particles from the beginning of their formation were smaller than atomic size....but this QM effect is not the big bang event as I have been defining it consistently..

There were no quantum mechanics, as the present science understands, in play from time zero big bang until the quantum vacuum fluctuation began...this is what I understand as the big bang event..

This is the gap that you need to address Bunyip, because when you or anyone claims the big bang was a quantum event...this is the part I refer to and say no it isn't, because the definition of QM is not in play at the critical big bang starting phase..

 

[gnostic]

There must be some expanse for it to explode. How did this expanse come to exist?

For one, you should stop making faulty assumption as others have made, having never read the Big Bang theory.

The expansion of the universe doesn't require "explosion".

When science think of explosion, they think of thing started being cold and inert, an when it explode, everything go from cold to hot.

The Big Bang is the opposite of an explosion. The universe start extremely hot. So hot that it particles and atoms can't form. So matters cannot exist, until the universe become considerably cooler. As the universe and space expand (BB), the universe is actually becoming cooler.

Just because it is call the Big Bang, doesn't mean BB is an explosion. So I would suggest that you stop assuming it is an "explosion".

 

[metis]

But that is the definition of quantum mechanics....see my post #367. Of course I understand what the leptons and hadrons that make up an atom are...for heaven's sake, do you think I'm posting this stuff based on just a casual reading!

The article you linked to is the one I started a thread on some time back...it is using quantum theory to prove there was no beginning, but was not to do with supporting evidence for quantum mechanics being in play before particle formation.....btw, that article did not go over well with the big bang true believers....

According to Susskind, he says that most cosmologists do believe that the causes of our universe probably go back into infinity, therefore there is not likely to be an "uncaused cause" of the BB. Also, because of what we know about q.m., it opens the door to there being more likely a multiverse that we're part of. And also some cosmologists have hypothesized that we may be involved within parallel universes, but that's hardly a slam dunk.

Needless to say, and I hope you can get this from my posts, I'm not exactly a supporter of "uncaused causes", and this would also apply to the BB as well.

Also, string theory may well explain why q.m. is what it is, but neither is that a slam dunk.

 

[metis]

Gotcha...sorry..metis....but there were others earlier on this thread that were making the claim and so if any are reading this...please respond?

No problem, and apology accepted. I had a difficult time trying to figure out what caused our disconnect, but that's not unusual on forums such as these.

 

[paarsurrey]

As the universe and space expand

If there is no room to expand ; how could the Big-bang bang?
Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

According to Susskind, he says that most cosmologists do believe that the causes of our universe probably go back into infinity, therefore there is not likely to be an "uncaused cause" of the BB. Also, because of what we know about q.m., it opens the door to there being more likely a multiverse that we're part of. And also some cosmologists have hypothesized that we may be involved within parallel universes, but that's hardly a slam dunk.

Needless to say, and I hope you can get this from my posts, I'm not exactly a supporter of "uncaused causes", and this would also apply to the BB as well.

Also, string theory may well explain why q.m. is what it is, but neither is that a slam dunk.

Yes metis. I do understand...and I also am absolutely sure that the universe is infinite...but because I have been been talking to the big bang true believers strictly on the basis of their own flawed dogma...I had just dropped adding the caveat on each post that I do not believe in the big bang...

Incidentally, the reason why I have been showing that QM is not present at the beginning of the big bang event, and only comes into play after the expansion has cooled space sufficiently for the quantum fluctuations to begin forming particles is to ultimately show that there was no big bang event in the first instance...QM has neen in play throughout the infinite universe for eternity...NASA admit open that big bang theory could be wrong and that it will take on additional add-on ideas, or models, to explain more than it currently explains....the infinite universe will be accepted sooner or later...

 

[metis]

Yes metis. I do understand...and I also am absolutely sure that the universe is infinite...but because I have been been talking to the big bang true believers strictly on the basis of their own flawed dogma...I had just dropped adding the caveat on each post that I do not believe in the big bang...

Incidentally, the reason why I have been showing that QM is not present at the beginning of the big bang event, and only comes into play after the expansion has cooled space sufficiently for the quantum fluctuations to begin forming particles is to ultimately show that there was no big bang event in the first instance...QM has neen in play throughout the infinite universe for eternity...NASA admit open that big bang theory could be wrong and that it will take on additional add-on ideas, or models, to explain more than it currently explains....the infinite universe will be accepted sooner or later...

Are you proposing that the Steady-State Theory is correct after all? Is this what you mean by "infinite universe"?

Personally, I very much doubt our universe is infinite even though the components, although probably ever-changing, likely were. There's more than enough info to suggest that the BB did indeed happen, such as red-shift and the "after-glow" from the BB.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are you proposing that the Steady-State Theory is correct after all? Is this what you mean by "infinite universe"?

Personally, I very much doubt our universe is infinite even though the components, although probably ever-changing, likely were. There's more than enough info to suggest that the BB did indeed happen, such as red-shift and the "after-glow" from the BB.

Yes...see my sig line...the universe is one...never had a beginning...couldn't be any other way without having a miraculous something from nothing beginning. As for the manifest part, whether it be in the form of one steady state infinite universe or an infinite steady state mulltiverse of island universes.....all the material forms are finite, from island universes, galaxies, stars, etc., and thus have births and deaths...

You appear to have more faith in big bang than NASA and science in general have....NASA .WMAP Site FAQs says, wrt big bang theory.."it could be wrong...no theory is ever absolutely proved true". Much of the touted supporting evidence has been protected from skeptical science criticism by its orthodox followers....including red shift, CMB, and gravity...