The un-BigBang

[DeitySlayer]

"FOR FROM HIM AND THROUGH HIM AND TO HIM ARE ALL THINGS. TO HIM BE THE GLORY FOREVER." Romans 11:36, NRSV.

Please study 1 Cor. 15:22-28 and Hebrews 9:26.

I don't read Bible passages to see whether God exists. That's the intellectual equivalent of reading Harry Potter to determine whether Hogwarts is a real school.

 

[Super Universe]

Reversing backwards to 14 billion or there about years ago using modern science estimates, the initial energy was super hot possibly, and simply abundant with potential energy to say the least. It wasn't a very big beginning, perhaps the size of an atom. Yet within this there was the possibility for:

• Dinosaurs
• The Octave
• Consciousness
• Planets
• Oceans
• Whales
• Mountains
• Jupiter
• Milky Way
• Subway
• McDonald's
• Arlington Cemetery
• My dogs Max and Lady

All that from a single source of energy or matter depending on your choice of views. Yes it took a long time for these to come about, but it appears they did.

In fact, I was doing scales on the guitar the other day, and thought how strange the Big Bang was able to not only deliver the goods for me to be born, but also for the sounds of our world to be so harmonious with my perception and ears.

When I was painting, I was in awe from what the Big Bang could deliver in terms of complimentary colors and how they works so well together for a visual stimulus for my brain.

Going back to the beginning of the big bang, it is short of miraculous what has developed up until today.

All by chance, what a lottery ticket the Universe has turned out to be!

All by chance?

Like a billion needles stacking themselves end upon end, one on top of another.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Just to note, this was entirely rhetorical, the OP that is.

I don't believe it was all by chance, I just find it an interesting way to view things. I do that sometimes to change perspective on things that interest me. That's all...

 

[DeitySlayer]

All by chance?

Like a billion needles stacking themselves end upon end, one on top of another.

No, more like a billion needles being dropped and falling into an exact configuration. What the organized religions fail to mention, however, is that if you drop a billion needles, they are going to fall in an exact configuration. The chances of an individual configuration are extremely low; but there has to be one configuration. The needles can't just randomly suspend themselves in mid-air. It's only because we're on the other end, after all the needles have fallen, that it looks so miraculous. It's not. The Universe could have turned out a trillion trillion other ways, all of which are equally unlikely. But the point is: ONE OF THEM HAD TO HAPPEN.

 

[Super Universe]

No, more like a billion needles being dropped and falling into an exact configuration. What the organized religions fail to mention, however, is that if you drop a billion needles, they are going to fall in an exact configuration. The chances of an individual configuration are extremely low; but there has to be one configuration. The needles can't just randomly suspend themselves in mid-air. It's only because we're on the other end, after all the needles have fallen, that it looks so miraculous. It's not. The Universe could have turned out a trillion trillion other ways, all of which are equally unlikely. But the point is: ONE OF THEM HAD TO HAPPEN.

You can drop your needles a trillion trillion times or more but they will never, ever, stack themselves end to end one on top of another.

When something is as complicated as the universe it's absolute proof of intelligence. Lava, even given an infinity, still never creates a samurai sword.

The thing most people have a problem with is "Why?"

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You can drop your needles a trillion trillion times or more but they will never, ever, stack themselves end to end one on top of another.

You are wrong. Given enough trials, even that will happen. The fact that it seems impossible to you does not matter. The bottom line is, there were (at least) enough trials to result in intelligent life here on earth, and there is almost certainly intelligent life at other places in the universe. Nothing magical about it.

When something is as complicated as the universe it's absolute proof of intelligence.

No, it isn't. You want it to be. You don't understand the statistics behind it, and you desperately want your religious beliefs to be right - but none of that changes reality.

Lava, even given an infinity, still never creates a samurai sword.

Well, since it doesn't have the metallurgical contents needed, I'd say that you are right. Again, nothing magical about it, since some of the component alloys are not there.

The thing most people have a problem with is "Why?"

Wrong again. The thing that most people have a problem with is not being able to accept that there almost certainly is no "Why". Your argument that there MUST be a reason why is simply an argument from ignorance. The fact that you don't know the answer doesn't mean that your particular myth must automatically be correct.

 

[skydivephil]

If there are any astrophysicists passing through, I would appreciate it if they would correct or clarify me where necessary.

At one time there was a theory put forth that eventually our expanding universe would reach a point of maximum expansion. At that point, so the theory stated, all matter in the universe would begin to contract back in on itself due to gravitational forces at the universal interior.

So, according to this theory, the explosion known as the Big Bang which sparked our expanding universe would eventually have an opposite counter force, if you will, some kind of vast cosmic implosion with the entire universe collapsing inward to once again form a pressurized point of intense heat and density that would in theory eventually again explode with a Big Bang.

However, if my understanding is correct, there is now evidence that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating. This acceleration is believed to be the result of "dark energy" and something about the way it displaces "dark matter". And that is about where I get lost. Actually, the whole subject is far over my head, but I have a laymen's curiosity and interest.

I don't really know if and/or how evidence of universal acceleration forces any revisions to the expanding/contracting universe theory that I mentioned earlier. Maybe it doesn't force any changes to it at all. If not, then if this theory turns out to be correct, at some point our universe, as the OP kind of suggests, might literally implode with at first a gradual reversal of current expansion , but ultimately with dramatic violent force, compacting all energy and matter into a single point of maximum density.

So it goes.

The scenario you mention is known as the big crunch. the observation of accelerated expansion does indeed imply the big crunch is a highly unlikley scenario. i wouldnt say impossible though as we dont know whats casuing the acceleartion and so we cantt be sure it wont reverse. But i think its a highly unlikely scenario given the data we have now.
However there are other oscillating models that dont depened on a big crunch scenraio, such as Loop Quantum Gravity's big bounce:
Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?
or striing theory we have:
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

the bottom line is to know what was before the big bang we need a quantum theory of gravity and the most popular quantum theories inndicate oscccialation, but this is not the same as the big crunch scenario.

 

[Revoltingest]

All by chance?
Like a billion needles stacking themselves end upon end, one on top of another.

Chance plays a role, but when you have influences (eg, physical laws) acting upon the players (eg, particles), elegant patterns emerge as a direct consequence. The obvious analogy is evolution (for those who accept it): We have chance in random mutation. But then influencing the outcome of this random input, we have a fitness function, ie, survivial & reproduction, acting over large populations & long time frames. So it is not the pure chance of say....rolling dice. Morevoer, the needles self-stacking has the opposite of a fitness function, since a needle on a needle is highly unstable, would be "selected against".

For those who reject evolution, consider the Ideal Gas Law. There is an elegant relationship between temperature, pressure & volume. No supernatural explanation is needed, since this emergent property can be derived from applying probability to some simple assumptions about how molecules bounce into each other. (The field is known as statistical thermodynamics.) Btw, this theory came about directly as a result of trying to design more efficient steam engines during the industrial revolution. The notion of the existence of atoms was cast in concrete at this point.

Lava, even given an infinity, still never creates a samurai sword.

A the assembly of samurai sword does not appear to have natural origins the same way as molecules, planets, suns & galaxies.
I suppose though, that if people have a natural origin, then their creation of a samurai sword could be viewed as of natural origin too.

The thing most people have a problem with is "Why?"

I have no problem with not knowing why. Were I uncomfortable with my own ignorance, then I'd be in a sorry state indeed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What I've always wondered is where anything ultimately came from. The original energy for causing the Big Bang, how did it materialize? You can't get something from nothing is a fairly basic scientific concept. But at the same time, if it was a God that created the universe, then where did this God materialize from? And what lies outside of our universe? More universes? A true void of literal nothingness? A higher plane of existence (such as the Cave analogy)? Or is there even any way to escape our universe?

 

[skydivephil]

Wrong, you can get something from nothing. Indeed an entire universe:
Phys. Rev. D 30, 509 (1984): Quantum creation of universes

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A cosmological wave function describing the tunneling of the Universe from "nothing" into a de Sitter space is found in a simple minisuperspace model. The tunneling probability is proportional to exp(-3/8G2ρv), where ρv is the vacuum energy density at an extremum of the effective potential V(φ). The tunneling is most probable to the highest maximum of V(φ).

According to this, it is saying a cosmological wave tunneled the universe from "nothingness." However if it was a cosmological wave, where did this come from? It wasn't necessarily a God or Higher Power though. My statement is that nothing magically materializes from absolutely nothing.
And it's not too good posting only an abstract. I cannot learn from, or even read the actual article since you have to pay for it. And not too mention that article is very old, and many new discovers and breakthroughs have been made, and many ideas have been altered or discarded completely.

 

[David M]

My statement is that nothing magically materializes from absolutely nothing.

Then your statement is wrong.

Do some reading about virtual particles and the Casimir effect which was validated experimentally in 1997.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Do some reading about virtual particles and the Casimir effect which was validated experimentally in 1997.

Thanks for the lead, David. I had never heard of the Casimir effect, but it seems pretty cool. Science is an amazing animal.

 

[skydivephil]

According to this, it is saying a cosmological wave tunneled the universe from "nothingness." However if it was a cosmological wave, where did this come from? It wasn't necessarily a God or Higher Power though. My statement is that nothing magically materializes from absolutely nothing.
And it's not too good posting only an abstract. I cannot learn from, or even read the actual article since you have to pay for it. And not too mention that article is very old, and many new discovers and breakthroughs have been made, and many ideas have been altered or discarded completely.

You assume that eevryhting has to have a cause. This is not supported by physics. In Quantum mechanics events can occur wihtout a casue. I know this goes against your common sense notions and so it is hard to accept. but a read a book on quanutm mechanics and see the evidence for yourself.

As reagrds to posting the abstarct and it being old. The prupsoe is to show you that your conclusion is not consistent with moden physics.
As to the article being old, as far I know no one has contradicted it since. If you think they have please show me the reference.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As reagrds to posting the abstarct and it being old. The prupsoe is to show you that your conclusion is not consistent with moden physics.
As to the article being old, as far I know no one has contradicted it since. If you think they have please show me the reference.

I am going off the idea that it is very possible that a 26 year old article has had some alterations. Even Stephen Hawking was shown wrong when he originally stated there was 7 dimensions, and the number was upped to 11. Many things do change in 26 years. But no I don't have any direct contradictions, but an appreciation for current science. After all Pluto was regarded as a planet up to a few years ago.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... After all Pluto was regarded as a planet up to a few years ago.

... and a damned fine cartoon character, as well.

 

[skydivephil]

I am going off the idea that it is very possible that a 26 year old article has had some alterations. Even Stephen Hawking was shown wrong when he originally stated there was 7 dimensions, and the number was upped to 11. Many things do change in 26 years. But no I don't have any direct contradictions, but an appreciation for current science. After all Pluto was regarded as a planet up to a few years ago.

Shadow wolf, the examples you give are irrelevant. First off, I dont recall Stephen Hawking ecver saying there were 7 dimension, pleae prividde a reference. It seems unlikely to me becuase extra dimension is implied by string theory and Stephen hawking is not a string theorist. re Pluto this was just a change of classificaiton, no new science happened when PLuto was reclassified.

But much more importantly you argument boils down to "science has changed its mind before so I can disregard any finding that dont suit me on that basis."
Im sorry it doesnt work that way. science changes its mind if the evidence demands it, not becuase it doesnt suit. Yes things have been changed when new evidence comes to light, but there's certianly more things that have not been changed becuase the evidence used to establish them was solid. Given the evidence used to establish Quantum mechnics is incredibly solid it seems unlikely that the weird conclusion of Qm will just go away as you seem to hope. Lastly the age of the article is irrelvent, Einsitein's theory of relativity is over 100 years old, will you reject that too?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Chance plays a role, but when you have influences (eg, physical laws) acting upon the players (eg, particles), elegant patterns emerge as a direct consequence. The obvious analogy is evolution (for those who accept it): We have chance in random mutation. But then influencing the outcome of this random input, we have a fitness function, ie, survivial & reproduction, acting over large populations & long time frames. So it is not the pure chance of say....rolling dice. Morevoer, the needles self-stacking has the opposite of a fitness function, since a needle on a needle is highly unstable, would be "selected against".

Like every 10 needles that land furthest away from landing pin down, head up are removed and the remaining get little magnets put in em to help them land like that

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Of course everything came from a starting point.

before that, nothing, after that; may be the energy-matter of everything.
That the "big bang" is the present nominee for that position, makes little difference to the outcomes.

Looking forward from that point, all we could see would be chaos.
Looking backward to that point, we can see many of the links and processes that lead from chaos to what we find today.

An unexpected and unlikely result, Maybe?
Demonstrable, certainly?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Shadow wolf, the examples you give are irrelevant. First off, I dont recall Stephen Hawking ecver saying there were 7 dimension, pleae prividde a reference. It seems unlikely to me becuase extra dimension is implied by string theory and Stephen hawking is not a string theorist. re Pluto this was just a change of classificaiton, no new science happened when PLuto was reclassified.

He has recently been on Naked Science talking about it, and his theories have been discussed. I don't remember if he discussed on Into the Universe or not.

But much more importantly you argument boils down to "science has changed its mind before so I can disregard any finding that dont suit me on that basis."

That is not my approach. It's merely an approach of question everything. I see dark matter and energy as something exciting, because it is largely unknown. The Higgs boson, just in theory how it is supposed to give matter it's mass is another thing I find interesting, but ultimately I always wonder how? I even question the validity of the all 11 dimensions, because ultimately what was once good science and observation that showed the earth was flat and the center of the solar system was shown wrong when better methods of observation where created. And considering the dimensions exist only on paper as some elaborate mathematical formulas. And in an interview with Stephen Hawking, he said he is confident that evidence of these dimensions will eventually surface.

Lastly the age of the article is irrelvent, Einsitein's theory of relativity is over 100 years old, will you reject that too?

Einsteins theory has been shown to have some flaws to it. Nothing significant to completely alter his theory though.