The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

Not really...

Thats good to hear! If I as a Christian can admit that some of what I believe does not make sense to me, and if a wise man such as Feynman can say likewise, I feel that there is hope for me!

Buzz, please understand what I said before... this is deep. This is beyond high-school/undergraduate/post-graduate studies of thermodynamics. To understand this you first need to understand General Relativity to post-grad/post-doc level. Bruce Miller is not in any position other than to pass on layman level knowledge of the Big Bang. Just does not cut it. The guy may well have some speculations and he obviously knows some quantum mechanics... enough to be dangerous We have studied non-unitary time evolution and the problem is that it is very good at breaking 2LOT. It certainly doesn't give it to you! That's like saying live grenades make a great way of ensuring your party goes smoothly!Once again, you will almost certainly not read anything on the web that helps. There's stuff there but I'm sad to say you have no hope of understanding it (nor anyone else outside of quantum gravity)The big problem is that this area of science is too popular. Everyone wants to know something about it and appear knowledgable. Soon, everyone thinks they know enough to actually start writing something about it, puitting stuff up on their web pages. To the layman, this looks like readable science and hence the ignorance grows. The sad fact is my 2 year old's ramblings make more sense...

The thread is not about whether the Big Bang happened. It is about whether the current scientific understanding for the origin of the universe has a scientific foundation.In 1900 scientists believed the universe was static and eternal.By 2000 scientists believed the universe was 13.7 billion old, expanding and accelerating in its expansion, and that it had a definite beginning in the Big Bang.Does this change in viewpoint have a scientific foundation rooted in evidence? Certainly the answer is something anyone can understand.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Nevertheless, it would be interesting if you would address the specific problems he cited regarding the theory.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

if you insist... but only because it's you But will have to be later... busy now!

two concise models of the Big Bang:1) the standard theory can be represented by a cone with a sharp edge, a beginning point.2) another model proposed by Stephen Hawking is like a cone except it doesn't come to a point but rather is rounded (looks like a badminton birdie )and has no mathematical singularity.the problem with Hawking's theory which is an attempt to erase the singularity and have a universe that has always been around is that he uses imaginary numbers and not real ones. So now there are two finite universes with no explanation of how the beginning point even came to exist.Because of this singularity (that it has a beginning point)in both models one must consider the kalam argument: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.So science can account for everything after the proposed beginning but the Big Bang fails to adhere to a materialistic, finite universe. Even the notion of the Big Bang is not scientific.

You are referring to the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary Proposal. Why is it a problem to use imaginary numbers? If quantum mechanics has taught us anything, it is that imaginary numbers play a very real role in our universe and are not just the convenient tool of the engineers. For the universe to "begin to exist" there must be a time-frame in which the universe both doesn't exist and at some "later" time exists. Such a time-frame does not exist in the Big Bang model. For all time, the universe exists. It is just that "all time" is not infinite in extent.If you wish to tackle the Big Bang, which is a product of General Relativity, you have to tackle the concept of time as revealed by General Relativity. You cannot take one without the other...This message has been edited by cavediver, 03-29-2006 04:07 AM

If only Descartes hadn't given them that name people wouldn't have half the trouble they usually do.Imaginary numbers are just as real as real numbers.
And the system they form together, the complexes, is also very real.
The unfortunate thing is that when they come up in education (even at the undergraduate level) they are never really justified or explained.At best to most undergrads (at least in most universities) they're just a set of numbers of the form (x + yi) where i^2 = -1.They are, at their most basic level, a way of handling 2D geometry without thinking about the geometry.

True, and a claim that scientists are ignoring a "problem" of thermodyanimics in their scientific understanding of the origin of the universe is surely questioning the scientific foundation of that understanding? And this claim surely deserves rebutting? Or am I confused? No, it is a foundation rooted in theory... a theory that has made many predictions and those predictions have been observed There is no evidence of a singularity or beginning to time outside GR. Without GR, there is simply matter exploding outwards from us and an extrapolation to an earlier time when things were more dense and more hot. We might even think that there had been a real explosion!

Ah, a classic modus ponens argument:P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore the universe has a cause.I'll pick at a few points.The first step is to establish the argument as deductively valid. The difference between "begins" in premise 1 and "began" in premise 2 makes this a problem. One is present-tense; the other is past tense. Saying that something is presently universally true does not imply that it always has been universally true. I'll allow, however, that it can probably be patched.A bigger problem is that the argument contains one of two fallacies: either circular reasoning or equivocation.Assume first that the word "begin" is defined to mean "to come into existence from nothing". Then I submit that the only thing that has ever done this is the universe. Everything since has simply been a rearrangement of already-existing matter, not a "beginning" of new matter from nothing. So since the one and only thing that has "come into existence from nothing" is the universe, the sole piece of evidence that could be used in support of P1 is stated as the conclusion. Hence circular reasoning.On the other hand, assume "begin" is defined in some other way, so that events other than the advent of the universe fit the definition in P1. Then I submit that P2 commits the fallacy of equivocation. Whatever the definition used in P1 must be changed to include as an essential aspect "to come into existence from nothing" in P2.Kalam is an interesting argument, though some of its infinity arguments contain some rather glaring mathematical errors.

except that when imaginary numbers are used, as computational devices, to grease the equations and get the result the mathematicion wants. Hawking himself recognizes that this is not a realistic description of the universe or its origin, just a mathematical way modeling the universe so a singularity doesn't appear. (William Craig, Ph.D, Th.D)the idea of imaginary numbers, and infinity, is just conceptual, but not not descriptive of what can happen in the real world.if there is singularity present then there is no naturalistic explanation to account for an eternity of nothingness before the "expansion", something had to bring the universe into existence and that something (i.e. God) must be uncaused, timeless, personal being with free will, and enormous power.This message has been edited by CCXC, 03-29-2006 10:15 AM

opened the can of worms.NEVER EVER use the word explosion or the Creationist types go gaga.

be·gin
. To come into being: when life (or universe ) began.I'll go with the dictionary on the definition.If something comes into being then it must have a cause, how is it rational to assume otherwise? if a you hear a loud bang then something probably caused it. it wouldn't make sense to say that the bang came from nothing. if it is necessary for their to be a cause of the small bang then it is necessary for their to be a cause for the Big Bang. quite inescapable.

quote:

---

If something comes into being then it must have a cause, how is it rational to assume otherwise?

---

Since we have not witnessed every possible thing that has come into being or will come into being, how is it rational to assume that everything that comes into being must have a cause?

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)