The big bang and the creation of the universe.

[ImmortalFlame]

Tell me, in one way, how it would enable us to make tremendous leaps forward scientifically? Other than scientific knowledge, I really do not think it'd help us advance in any way other than knowing what actually happened.

You mean, understanding the fundamental principles of how matter works and finally reaching an understanding of the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity? An understanding of these things could fundamentally alter the principles of physics and our understanding of how time and space actually function or exist. The potential applications are limitless - but we won't actually know until we actually answer the question.

It's a curiosity indeed, but not a necessity at all, not worth putting money in and investigating, when we could be exploring biological or anthropological functions to find cures to more diseases or something as more relevant to us than "how did the universe start", because even if we DID find that answer it's still going to be disagreed upon by many people, there's going to be ranges of conspiracy theories, and the only thing it would serve for us is to eliminate that curiosity. I could be wrong, of course, but you'll have to show me how it'd be relevant at all.

Firstly, the money being put into projects like LHC isn't being "taken away" from medical research - that research is still going on, and the manpower and energy of the people at LHC is completely unrelated to the expertise of people in the medical field, so saying "why spend money/energy on that when we could be researching cures to diseases" is kind of like saying "why should we spend money and expertise on bakeries when what we really need is more carpet fitters". The expertise and the funding is completely different.

Secondly, just about every bit of knowledge ever collected by science that has ever been put to practical use is the result of inquiry. We seek to answer questions because, when we do, we find stuff out that we didn't know before and put it to use. Science is entirely about answering these questions and then using the answers we get back to some practical benefit for our society.

I hate it, absolutely hate it, when people say things like what you've just said. It smacks of complacency, lack of curiosity and presumptive arrogance. If you don't feel the need to know, fine, but don't denigrate the work of thousands of scientists or try to imply it's pointless just because you lack the understanding of how important it is.

I agree with the sum of awe. Also many year's of "searching and looking and seeking" has gone on to try and solve The mystery of how the universe was created. As far as I know it has not been solved. I do not see that changeing any time soon. Our greatest mind's have tried and failed. So really the question is to you, Why do you see it solveable?

This is called an argument from ignorance. "They don't know yet so it must be unsolvable". That's garbage. It may be shocking to think, but science actually advances, and, despite what you might imagine, we aren't at the absolute pinnacle of it yet. Why do I think it's solvable? Because there's no point just giving up and assuming that it isn't. That mentality never got anybody anywhere, and nobody who adopted that mentality ever achieved anything worthwhile. There's a point to trying to solve every question, and if you can't see it it's not because the question isn't worth answering or is unsolvable - it's purely because of your lack of curiosity, understanding or imagination.

Seriously, how the hell can you be so short-sighted and presumptive?

 

[outhouse]

Based on what? What makes you think it's unsolvable? What makes you think that discovering the origin of all matter in the known Universe wouldn't enable us to make tremendous leaps forward scientifically? What makes you think that people trying to figure out some of the largest questions in all of human history through scientific advancement and the investment of their incredible collective intelligence aren't "living in the now"? Do you not think that, maybe, these kinds of questions actually matter and are worth investigating? Do you not possess any scientific curiosity whatsoever?

I agree.

Anyone who questions this doesn't understand the scientific importance of what they are even debating.

Basically, arguing from a point of ignorance.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Nothing cannot create something.
Big Bang goes that something(a singularity/energy) created something.

 

[gnostic]

Also many year's of "searching and looking and seeking" has gone on to try and solve The mystery of how the universe was created. As far as I know it has not been solved. I do not see that changeing any time soon. Our greatest mind's have tried and failed. So really the question is to you, Why do you see it solveable?

This is called an argument from ignorance. "They don't know yet so it must be unsolvable". That's garbage.

My thought exactly.

If titanic13 don't want to increase scientific knowledge and scientific application, then it is his problem and it is his choice to wallow in ignorance.

I don't see how "what we can't solve it, YET", be the same as "we will never solve it".

It may be shocking to think, but science actually advances, and, despite what you might imagine, we aren't at the absolute pinnacle of it yet. Why do I think it's solvable? Because there's no point just giving up and assuming that it isn't.

If they have it their way, we will be stuck in thinking the world (Earth) is flat or that the Sun revolve around the Earth (geocentric model).

Science progresses incrementally, over a long period of time. Although we have come very far in the 20th century, we are still at the infant phase in science and technology, because we are still learning and we definitely can still learn more than we currently know now.

Titanic13's attitude (and even The_Sum_of_Awe) is to stop, because we are currently at impasse with our current knowledge of the Big Bang theory.

It would be like stopping astronomy, just because Galileo invented telescope. Astronomy didn't stop because of the telescope. Technology and science allow us to progressive build better telescope, over the years. Even when we built larger telescope at various observatories around the world in the 20th century, we didn't stop there. We used other science and technology to see clear and further, such as the radio telescope, and we used microwave, infrared and others, still only view a tiny fraction of what we can see today.

It would be like asking Einstein to not developing his theory on relativity, because we already have Newton's theory on gravity. Should we also stop science at Einstein's relativity and not look at quantum physics?

No.

So, like you, ImmortalFlame, I definitely agree science shouldn't stop just because we don't currently have the technology to look beyond the Big Bang.

 

[jake0333]

>
A few of the Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-Tuning the Universe) The Big-bang

The explosive-force of the big-bang had to be fine-tuned to match the strength of gravity to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000.
This is one part in 10^60. The number 10^60 = 1 followed by 60 zeros.
This precision is the same as the odds of a random shot (bullet from a gun) hitting a one-inch target from a distance of 20 billion light-years.
Epistemic probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

.
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.

The big bang does not propose that something came from nothing. Please educate yourself on this subject, as I am willing to guess you are probably unaware that the big bang did not actually include a bang.
And how did God come to being? If there is nothing, then how did god come into being from nothing? How did the universe come from nothing, because really ultimately be it god or matter, something ultimately did come from nothing if you want to go far enough down the lines, but which one exactly? Why should I put my faith in god as having come from ultimately nothing when he has done absolutely nothing to show me he is there? Especially when all the evidence points towards everything just happened because it just happened.

 

[collectivedementia]

--------------- stop filling this disucssion with your nonesense ---------------

if you brain is not capable of understanding this simple question then please go do something els with your time.

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist):
"Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate
triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist):
“To understand the universe at the deepest level, we have to understand why is there something rather than nothing,”
“Why do we exist? Why this particular set of laws, and not some other? I believe the answers to all of these things is M-theory.”

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics):
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required
to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."


So guys....define NOTHING!!!!

Thats easy...take everything we see and know to be in this universe out of existance,then would you have nothing.Except for the vacuum of empty space...so,never mind.

 

[outhouse]

>
A few of the Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-Tuning the Universe) The Big-bang

The explosive-force of the big-bang had to be fine-tuned to match the strength of gravity to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000.
This is one part in 10^60. The number 10^60 = 1 followed by 60 zeros.
This precision is the same as the odds of a random shot (bullet from a gun) hitting a one-inch target from a distance of 20 billion light-years.
Epistemic probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001

.

Your not allowed to quote mine without sources.

Anthropic Coincidences is nothing but imagination and wishful thinking.

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".

The argument from imperfection suggests that if the Universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not.[37] In fact, most of the Universe is highly hostile to life.

 

[secret2]

>
A few of the Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-Tuning the Universe) The Big-bang

The explosive-force of the big-bang had to be fine-tuned to match the strength of gravity to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000.
This is one part in 10^60. The number 10^60 = 1 followed by 60 zeros.
This precision is the same as the odds of a random shot (bullet from a gun) hitting a one-inch target from a distance of 20 billion light-years.
Epistemic probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001

.

Seems like this thread is not going well for you either. Time to start a new one.

 

[Thief]

Someone mentioned attributes......about God?

How about the ability to say...."I AM!"....that ONE!

Someone had to be First in mind and heart.

That's TWO!

 

[johnhanks]

>
A few of the Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-Tuning the Universe) The Big-bang

The explosive-force of the big-bang had to be fine-tuned to match the strength of gravity to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000.
This is one part in 10^60. The number 10^60 = 1 followed by 60 zeros.
This precision is the same as the odds of a random shot (bullet from a gun) hitting a one-inch target from a distance of 20 billion light-years.
Epistemic probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001

.

More Anthropic Coincidence drivel. The probability that an intelligent life-form finds itself in a universe capable of producing intelligent life-forms is exactly 1.

 

[zaybu]

.
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.

.

One of the fundamental concept in QM is the vacuum state. Without it, the whole structure of QM falls apart. How is it define? simple, extract everything you can think from a quantum state: all electrons, all quarks, all photons, all gravitons, all Higgs boson, etc. and what you have is the vacuum state.

Now you have nothing.

However, this vacuum has a lot of unsuspected properties.

(1) When you calculate it, say for free scalar fields, it gives you infinite energy. You can hide it under the rug, which is ok in flat space, but in curved spacetime, you can't ignore it.

(2) You can shift the vacuum to a direction in order to break some symmetry - the Higgs Mechanism that gave us the Higg boson last year is built on that notion.

(3) Near a black hole, a pair of particle/antiparticles can pop out of the vacuum, one of them gets trapped by the black hole, the other can travel anywhere to infinity (Hawking radiation).

(4) You can even measure the force this vacuum will exert between two parallel plates if you squeeze these two together (Casimir effect).

Yet, you're supposed to have nothing!

Now, can we have a universe popping out of this vacuum? In light of what we know about the vacuum, we can't rule it out. It's definitely a working hypothesis.

 

[chinu]

.
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.

.

Big bang is the result of God that created something from nothing.
Big bang isn't the result of nothing that created something from nothing, becuase still, the one who has discoverd this "Nothing" is searching "Something" isn't it ?

 

[Ouroboros]

Another stupid thread.

Yup.

And the tone with which the "questions" are carried it suggests the poster has no intention of having them answered.

If I would spend my time and teach him/her, I'd like to be paid for my time!

 

[Almustafa]

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist):
“To understand the universe at the deepest level, we have to understand why is there something rather than nothing,”


the heart sutra says; form is formlessness given form
the Tao te ching says; the manifest arises from the unmanifest & back again
Krshna says(the Bhagavad Gita); all the visible universe arises from my invisible nature.
Adi Shankara says; just as pots & jars can be no other than the clay it is made out of, so creation cannot be anything but the creator it is made out of...


So what is Nothing?
Nothing is Something!
Nothing is Pure unformed Substance... primordial energy with no qualities whatsoever. when a portion of nothing developed qualities, it now could be compared as form/formlessness...

thus something came from nothing

 

[jake0333]

Almustafa, that's a very deep thoughts and you have a meaning in it but missing alot.


How did so much energy gather AND order itself? it's not possible for so much energy to gather and order itself. Matter does not come from nothing by nothing nor tend to gather nor self assemble nor self replicate by itself without guidance.

physical laws or useful energy or matter will not assmble itself into precise order from nothing by nothing.

So the question is... can nothing create matter, energy and physical laws from nothing?

Do you see how simple the question is? but too much harassment from the little kids in here.

 

[Agnostic75]

.

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.

You obviously believe that a God exists. Which God do you believe exists, and why?

The majority of non-Christians in the world already believe in various gods. What is your message to them?

As far as "a nothing that created something from nothing" is concerned, such a simplistic argument would not be well-received in meetings among physicists. Do you not know that much of quantum physics does not appeal to laymen, and does not make any sense to them, and that laymen are not qualified to answer complex questions about quantum physics?

As a Wikipedia article says "many aspects of quantum mechanics may sound counterintuitive to a layman, while they may be intuitive to a particle physicist."

There is a website at Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums that is called "Physics Forum." It has over 385,000 members, and many of them have advanced degrees in various sciences, including physics, and biology. There is a cosmology forum there. One of the threads is titled "Origin From Nothing - what does it mean?" The link is Origin from Nothing - what does it mean?. If you believe that you know a lot about physics, please participate in that thread, and we will follow your progress. It would be quite interesting if you posted what you said in this thread in that thread at "Physics Forum."

What is your educational background in physics?

 

[idav]

So the question is... can nothing create matter, energy and physical laws from nothing?

Do you see how simple the question is? but too much harassment from the little kids in here.

There is no reason to assume anything needed creating. Your superiority complex wont allow you to see passed your bias. Existence itself is its own creation. Whether the creation/existence was willed or unwilled is up for speculation. Your argument about nothing is also a problem when trying to insert God into the equation. Ignoring that issue doesnt help your argument.

 

[DanielR]

The universe was created with your birth!

 

[jake0333]

idav,

I think it's better to stop the discussion at this point. What we are discussion makes people furious because what we are talking about
doesn't fit into the reality that they chosen it to be, so they abuse me too much to force me to stop.

I already reached this conclusion long time ago..

You have chosen that nothing created something from nothing, SO nothing took nothing and created something.

If people in this discussion picked the answer that they wanted, we won't go through all of this miserable abuse and embarrassments to reach this conclusion.