The big bang and the creation of the universe.

[gnostic]

Which theory do like better? God did it or the universe came into being by a "pop"? I say that most likely there both wrong.

How about man invented spirits or gods at some point in time, because they have no other explanations for the natural world?

I just find it sad that we are still superstitious in this day and age.

And BTW, the universe didn't just pop into existence. It took ages before the 1st stars appeared, and it took even longer for our own solar system to form out of the cosmic dump and debris of previous dead star(s).

 

[Repox]

Scientists dont say where the energy came from. They start with the premise of energy and then insert big bang thoery. The law of conservation didnt suddenly change just cause of expansion. The matter came when the energy had time to cool and settle into matter some 500 million years after expansion.

I am not sure of what theory you're referring to. What do you mean by the premise of energy. If the big bang started the universe, why wouldn't energy be part of the result.

 

[Repox]

Thats where mass-energy equivalence comes in and Einsteins theory of relativity.

Laws of probability are not very useful. I can throw infinitesimal odds by taking a bag of rice and throwing it into a pan each and every time noting the position of each grain and calculating the odds of duplication. The universe exists using the same principle in that the universe is formed as it's presented and and calculating for a duplication of complex arrangements that like the first throw of the rice grains, it's already established each and every event.

I get your point. Maybe it would depend on how the problem is set up. As an example, assuming X (elementary particles) possibility after 10 (-25) seconds of the big bang, what would be the likelihood of different outcomes? To compute probabilities you presuppose different outcomes at specific junctures. That calculation may be possible with modern computers.

 

[Aamer]

Many ignorant Muslims that have never read or really tried to understand Quran, don't realize that Quran supports the big bang theory. Something can not be born out of nothing. I believe that God, the creator, is the master designer. He set the wheels in motion and the universe developed from there. Even if you don't prescribe to religion, I don't think it's illogical to believe an outside force started the process. Yes, science and religion can coexist. Here's what was revealed in the Quran over 1400 years ago...

[21:30] Did those who reject not see that the heavens and the earth were one mass and We tore them apart? That We made from the water everything that lives. Will they not acknowledge?

[21:31] We made on the earth stabilizers so that it would not tumble with you, and We made in it wide paths that they may be guided.

[21:32] We made the sky a protective ceiling. Yet they are turning away from Our signs!

[21:33] He is the One who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each swimming in an orbit.

Please note: 1400 years ago, there was no word in classical Arabic for "space". They called it the "heavens". 21:30 I believe is taking about space.

 

[idav]

I am not sure of what theory you're referring to. What do you mean by the premise of energy. If the big bang started the universe, why wouldn't energy be part of the result.

There is a particular wording ive heard that may help me convey this. The big bang is the beginning of the universe as we know it. Meaning it was a change not a literal beginning. They do the same thing with time. Beginning of time as we know it. Meaning time might of been different but the beginning of time in the state we are familiar with.

 

[Repox]

There is a particular wording ive heard that may help me convey this. The big bang is the beginning of the universe as we know it. Meaning it was a change not a literal beginning. They do the same thing with time. Beginning of time as we know it. Meaning time might of been different but the beginning of time in the state we are familiar with.

I think I understand. You're saying time is not what we know, but it may have transcended the big bang in another context. Is that correct? If so, how can we understand that context? I agree that time is a key to understanding the universe. As long as we accept time as a measure of things, we must follow its lead. This is where I began my discussion. Time is a key variable for understanding processes, one of which is the universe. It divides things into categories related to stages.

 

[Repox]

Many ignorant Muslims that have never read or really tried to understand Quran, don't realize that Quran supports the big bang theory. Something can not be born out of nothing. I believe that God, the creator, is the master designer. He set the wheels in motion and the universe developed from there. Even if you don't prescribe to religion, I don't think it's illogical to believe an outside force started the process. Yes, science and religion can coexist. Here's what was revealed in the Quran over 1400 years ago...

[21:30] Did those who reject not see that the heavens and the earth were one mass and We tore them apart? That We made from the water everything that lives. Will they not acknowledge?

[21:31] We made on the earth stabilizers so that it would not tumble with you, and We made in it wide paths that they may be guided.

[21:32] We made the sky a protective ceiling. Yet they are turning away from Our signs!

[21:33] He is the One who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each swimming in an orbit.

Please note: 1400 years ago, there was no word in classical Arabic for "space". They called it the "heavens". 21:30 I believe is taking about space.

Thank you, I will read those references from the Quran. For God's truth, there should be consistence among religions.

 

[Willamena]

.
I have few questions if you have the time to answer them.

Which makes more sense to you as a rational, intelligent and intellectual human being?

That the big bang is the result of:

1- A nothing that created something from nothing
2- God that created something from nothing

Please try to keep up with me on this one if possible...

You choose which makes more sense to you.

.

Neither.

The big bang is a result of Catholic mysticism and too much French wine.

 

[idav]

I think I understand. You're saying time is not what we know, but it may have transcended the big bang in another context. Is that correct? If so, how can we understand that context? I agree that time is a key to understanding the universe. As long as we accept time as a measure of things, we must follow its lead. This is where I began my discussion. Time is a key variable for understanding processes, one of which is the universe. It divides things into categories related to stages.

I agree with the stages thing. Time is change. However when you rewind the universe to the beginning relativity brings time to a standstill, infinite without beginning or end.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Overal science doesn't claim to know. The theory that has stuck and maintained its position the longest in our modern scientific world is the Big Bang theory. The big bang theory does a few things.

1) Takes the information from the universe. Specifically that we are expanding

2) Deducts that If we are expanding we must have been more concentrated at one time.

3) We don't see evidence of it slowing down, speeding up, changing ect. So the logical conclusion is that at one point we were in a singularity.

Its the logical backtracking of our current situation. What caused the universe to suddenly expand, come into being, ect is not necessarily touched on in the theory. We have some crazy ideas such as the Big Bounce theory which still fits into the eteral Universe theory that preceded the Big Bang theory. Multiverse theory which is favored by many in the M-theory world of physics. Though then this leads to the question "where did the multiverse come from?".

What the Big Bang Theory does not do.

1) State that there was once nothing and then it exploded for no reason.

2) That it knows anything specifically about where matter, energy, laws of physics come from.

Now many people on the Theistic side like to jump on this "well it must have been god" routine. They have gotten good at this over the years. Its almost automatic in some places. But this is a god of the gaps routine that isn't based in reason or logic. The default answer is not automatically god if we can't explain it and it doesn't in any way counteract the science if the science doesn't know everything.

The best explination is "we don't know. But this is what we've worked out so far".

 

[johnhanks]

Originally Posted by johnhanks
Unless science can prove a natural science cause, God is the default explanation.

IOW, if we don't know, God did it. BTW, that fallacy has a name: God-of-the-gaps.

Zaybu, you have somehow attributed the statement at the top to me. It is Repox's. Please correct.

 

[zaybu]

Zaybu, you have somehow attributed the statement at the top to me. It is Repox's. Please correct.

I just did.

My apologies.

 

[zaybu]

Is long as we accept time as a measure of things, we must follow its lead. This is where I began my discussion. Time is a key variable for understanding processes, one of which is the universe. It divides things into categories related to stages.

In GR, spacetime is a dynamical feature of the universe. Spacetime and matter can only exist together. And after 100 years, GR is still the reigning paradigm.

 

[McBell]

I don't believe discussing science and the big bang has anything to do with exaggeration. It seems you are trying to start something. Oh, I don't like being called a liar.

I am not trying to start anything.
Unless you consider not playing your dishonesty game is "starting" something.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc. I call it a duck.


now since you are much more interested in your game than you are honest discussion, I shall bow out of the thread.

 

[Ouroboros]

Neither.

The big bang is a result of Catholic mysticism and too much French wine.

And cheese, don't forget the old smelly vintage cheese.

 

[ruffen]

.
I have few questions if you have the time to answer them.

Which makes more sense to you as a rational, intelligent and intellectual human being?

That the big bang is the result of:

1- A nothing that created something from nothing
2- God that created something from nothing

Please try to keep up with me on this one if possible...

You choose which makes more sense to you.

.

Definitely number 1 - as that would be the same nothing that is needed to create God in hypothesis 2, so that mechanism must have existed either way.


I've read a bit of professor Lawrence Krauss' work on this specific question. As time itself is thought to have started at the Big Bang, there was no before in which a cause could have happened to cause it.

But more importantly, as Krauss shows, the two big mysteries of the Universe in modern science may very well be each the answer to the other. Those are:
- how could something (the Universe) come from nothing (no Universe)?
- why is the expansion of the Universe accelerating?

Disclaimer: i am not a physicist/cosmologist, so my understanding is limited. Also, these are not scientifically proven theories, but plausible hypotheses where the math adds up and agrees with observation. If I understand Krauss correctly this is how it goes:

The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is due to something called "dark energy". This is in fact a small amount of negative energy in empty space. How can it be empty if there's negative energy there, I hear you ask. The energy is in the "fabric" of space itself. If you have a cubic metre of space there will be a tiny amount of dark energy there - it is a property of space itself.

After the Big Bang (well duh, as there was no before), when the Universe was smaller and denser than today, gravity was the dominant force (as gravity is stronger the closer things are together), and the expansion of the Universe was therefore slowing down due to gravity as you might expect.

Then, as the Universe got bigger gravity gets weaker as galaxies are farther apart, and then dark energy became the dominant force on cosmological distance scales, causing the expansion to start speeding up again. This acceleration is confirmed by measuring distances and redshift of a special type of supernovae.


So we have a Universe containing matter and dark matter (which does not interact with photons, so light goes right through it and it is transparent and invisible - the term "dark" is not as in "opaque" but as in "does not shine like stars" - but dark matter interacts with gravity in the same way as normal matter).

Matter is a form of energy (E = mc2 describes the amount of energy in 1 gram of matter) and all this normal and dark matter is positive (normal) energy.

Empty space does contain dark energy, which is the negative energy that is a feature of space itself.

If you take all the positive energy in the Universe and subtract the calculated amount of negative energy (based on calculations from the supernova data), you get... drum roll.... PRECISELY ZERO!


The total energy contents of the entire Universe is precisely ZERO!!


Now on to how you get something from nothing. That is in fact extremely easy as long as the total energy in that something is zero. It requires zero energy to create it, zero effort, zero gods. Nothing at all.

Of course there may have been a "cause" still, in the form of quantum fluctuations or other as of yet unknown mechanisms, but on the other hand, maybe you don't need a cause at all?



Imagine that you are in deep, deep empty space. You throw a ball out the window of your spacecraft. The ball will keep on moving unless disturbed by forces or other objects. The cause for the ball starting to move is you throwing it. But the ball does not need a CAUSE to keep moving, as this requires zero energy. If you didn't throw it, it would be stationary, but it would not need a CAUSE to be stationary, as that would require zero energy.

Even in a gravity field, if you throw a ball up from the Moon's surface, it will go up, slowing down as it converts its kinetic energy into potential energy (altitude). Then it starts going down again, converting potential energy into kinetic energy. During the entire movement of the ball, the energy stays constant. In other words, zero energy is added to the ball, and zero is removed. The ball does not need a CAUSE to slow down its upward motion until it starts moving down again. It does not need a CAUSE change direction or speed, as the total energy change in doing so is precisely zero. In fact, the ball cannot suddenly decide not to fall down (THAT would need a cause!). Neither can it accelerate at any other rate than it is doing unless acted upon by a force (cause).

The energy change in creating the universe was, as in the cases with the ball, zero.

Stuff that requires zero total energy can and will happen spontaneously. At the tiniest levels quantum fluctuations happen all the time. An electron/positron pair (matter/antimatter) appear out of nothing, attract each other due to opposite charge, annihilate, no energy gained or lost in the process.


As long as the total energy content of the entire Universe is precisely 0, there is no longer a miracle or God required to create it. And the discovery of dark energy confirms this at least partially, I do not know how far in the peer review and scientific process this is, and as I said I am not expert. I believe Krauss has said that it is not proven, but it is plausible from a scientific point of view, meaning that the mathematics add up, and is confirmed by observation.

But it seems very logical that the only kind of Universe that can spontaneously appear from nothing, is a Universe with 0 total energy.

 

[Repox]

I am not trying to start anything.
Unless you consider not playing your dishonesty game is "starting" something.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc. I call it a duck.


now since you are much more interested in your game than you are honest discussion, I shall bow out of the thread.

If you have an argument, present it. Remember the topic is the big bang and the creation of the universe. My argument is God did it and science has no natural science explanation. Not liking my answer, you claim I am dishonest because I believe in God. How stupid is that!

Skip the stupid game, and make your argument.

 

[fantome profane]

If you have an argument, present it. Remember the topic is the big bang and the creation of the universe. My argument is God did it and science has no natural science explanation. Not liking my answer, you claim I am dishonest because I believe in God. How stupid is that!

Skip the stupid game, and make your argument.

Would you like to tell us exactly what you thing "God" did, and exactly how "God" did it?

 

[Repox]

Definitely number 1 - as that would be the same nothing that is needed to create God in hypothesis 2, so that mechanism must have existed either way.


I've read a bit of professor Lawrence Krauss' work on this specific question. As time itself is thought to have started at the Big Bang, there was no before in which a cause could have happened to cause it.

But more importantly, as Krauss shows, the two big mysteries of the Universe in modern science may very well be each the answer to the other. Those are:
- how could something (the Universe) come from nothing (no Universe)?
- why is the expansion of the Universe accelerating?

Disclaimer: i am not a physicist/cosmologist, so my understanding is limited. Also, these are not scientifically proven theories, but plausible hypotheses where the math adds up and agrees with observation. If I understand Krauss correctly this is how it goes:

The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is due to something called "dark energy". This is in fact a small amount of negative energy in empty space. How can it be empty if there's negative energy there, I hear you ask. The energy is in the "fabric" of space itself. If you have a cubic metre of space there will be a tiny amount of dark energy there - it is a property of space itself.

After the Big Bang (well duh, as there was no before), when the Universe was smaller and denser than today, gravity was the dominant force (as gravity is stronger the closer things are together), and the expansion of the Universe was therefore slowing down due to gravity as you might expect.

Then, as the Universe got bigger gravity gets weaker as galaxies are farther apart, and then dark energy became the dominant force on cosmological distance scales, causing the expansion to start speeding up again. This acceleration is confirmed by measuring distances and redshift of a special type of supernovae.


So we have a Universe containing matter and dark matter (which does not interact with photons, so light goes right through it and it is transparent and invisible - the term "dark" is not as in "opaque" but as in "does not shine like stars" - but dark matter interacts with gravity in the same way as normal matter).

Matter is a form of energy (E = mc2 describes the amount of energy in 1 gram of matter) and all this normal and dark matter is positive (normal) energy.

Empty space does contain dark energy, which is the negative energy that is a feature of space itself.

If you take all the positive energy in the Universe and subtract the calculated amount of negative energy (based on calculations from the supernova data), you get... drum roll.... PRECISELY ZERO!


The total energy contents of the entire Universe is precisely ZERO!!


Now on to how you get something from nothing. That is in fact extremely easy as long as the total energy in that something is zero. It requires zero energy to create it, zero effort, zero gods. Nothing at all.

Of course there may have been a "cause" still, in the form of quantum fluctuations or other as of yet unknown mechanisms, but on the other hand, maybe you don't need a cause at all?



Imagine that you are in deep, deep empty space. You throw a ball out the window of your spacecraft. The ball will keep on moving unless disturbed by forces or other objects. The cause for the ball starting to move is you throwing it. But the ball does not need a CAUSE to keep moving, as this requires zero energy. If you didn't throw it, it would be stationary, but it would not need a CAUSE to be stationary, as that would require zero energy.

Even in a gravity field, if you throw a ball up from the Moon's surface, it will go up, slowing down as it converts its kinetic energy into potential energy (altitude). Then it starts going down again, converting potential energy into kinetic energy. During the entire movement of the ball, the energy stays constant. In other words, zero energy is added to the ball, and zero is removed. The ball does not need a CAUSE to slow down its upward motion until it starts moving down again. It does not need a CAUSE change direction or speed, as the total energy change in doing so is precisely zero. In fact, the ball cannot suddenly decide not to fall down (THAT would need a cause!). Neither can it accelerate at any other rate than it is doing unless acted upon by a force (cause).

The energy change in creating the universe was, as in the cases with the ball, zero.

Stuff that requires zero total energy can and will happen spontaneously. At the tiniest levels quantum fluctuations happen all the time. An electron/positron pair (matter/antimatter) appear out of nothing, attract each other due to opposite charge, annihilate, no energy gained or lost in the process.


As long as the total energy content of the entire Universe is precisely 0, there is no longer a miracle or God required to create it. And the discovery of dark energy confirms this at least partially, I do not know how far in the peer review and scientific process this is, and as I said I am not expert. I believe Krauss has said that it is not proven, but it is plausible from a scientific point of view, meaning that the mathematics add up, and is confirmed by observation.

But it seems very logical that the only kind of Universe that can spontaneously appear from nothing, is a Universe with 0 total energy.

I thought you may be interested in Stauss' latest ideas about creation.

How the Higgs Boson Posits a New Story of our Creation - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

I also read his book "A Universe From Nothing" and learned a lot about dark matter, etc. as you did. It is fascinating stuff. Strauss was always inclined to not believe in a creator. However, he is an honest man with a sincere desire for scientific evidence as opposed to speculation. The supposed "God Particle" has sparked a lot of speculation. "It may be accidental consequences of conditions associated with the universe’s birth."

To date, however, the evidence is skimpy with no theoretical consensus.

 

[gnostic]

If you have an argument, present it. Remember the topic is the big bang and the creation of the universe. My argument is God did it and science has no natural science explanation. Not liking my answer, you claim I am dishonest because I believe in God. How stupid is that!

Skip the stupid game, and make your argument.

Repox.

No one is questioning your belief in creation or in God creating the universe.

It is your continuous misinformation on the Big Bang that we find dishonest.

Like jake033, you're misrepresenting what the theory in Big Bang cosmology is actually saying. Either that, or you are simply don't understand the theory/explanation.

So it really depends on if you are misunderstanding the theory, out of ignorance, OR if you are deliberately misrepresenting the theory, which in this case, you're being dishonest.

If you were ignorant, then it is possible for you to learn more about the Big Bang, and hopefully understand the theory better. Not all creationists have science qualification or background.

Here is a few common mistakes that most creationists make about the BB cosmology. (Please note that below, when I writes "you", I mean "you" in general, eg group of creationists).

1. The Big Bang is not about explosion, which you seemed to assume (ignorance) or deliberate misrepresent (dishonest).
2. You assume (ignorance) or misrepresent the theory when you say thing like the BB is creating SOMETHING out of NOTHING.

Personally I'd prefer that you to be ignorant, instead of a liar, because an ignorant person can learn from his or her mistake. All it required is better education on subject matter.