|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Origin? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
it's fine to reply to the original message. but take note to read the thread to be sure that what you have to say hasn't been said or refuted already.
poor grammar might be a style issue but it is one that significantly affects the readability of a post. eliminated capitalization when paired with correct punctuation and well-planned spacing does not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
eh. shit happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pianoprincess* Inactive Member |
PLEASE DON'T CUSS!!
and still, I'm curious as to where the original matter cam from for the big bang to take place. ??? What do most scientists think on this? If they don't know, then they still need an explination for where the universe and everything originated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
if you don't want to see cuss words, you can have your browser remove them for you. however, this board does not have any rules on obscenity, which is first amendment protected speech, and as such i can and will exercise my rights as i see fit.
then they still need an explination for where the universe and everything originated. i'd say the where is right here. well. not here on earth so to speak but sort of since the universe is still expanding, all of here used to be in a much smaller place. matter (mass) is conserved. it didn't come from anywhere. it cannot be destroyed or created. except when it is converted to energy by rapid acceleration. so i'd say there was energy that slowed down and became stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The problem comes from thinking linearly.
There was no before the big bang for there to have been matter to exist in to be involved in the big bang. The big bang theory isn't about where did the universe come from, its just a description of the universe. It has length, breadth, height and time. Its very confusing. As I am typing this I am about 3 metres above the ground, 1 metre away from my north wall and half a metre from the east wall. But I am also about +15,000,000,000 years after the universe was very hot and very dense. I found it very hard to really appreciate this, and its quite a trippy experience when you 'get' it. So, at the moment science simply sticks with 'The universe exists, here are its dimensions and how they work and interact'. Science does not know what 'caused' the universe to exist, if anything did. Unfortunately we have learned that some things don't happen because something causes them to, they just happen. Hopefully something did cause us to happen, but I'm open to the possibility that nothing did and we just are. I doubt science is going to explain any of that in the near future. The laws of reality that occur outside of our universe may well (probably are) different from the laws that occur within it (what we call the laws of nature). In that sense these possible 'meta' laws, are metaphysical in nature and are supernatural). It might not be possible to ever learn about these laws in any direct way, but we might be able to deduce them as time passes. Some scientists are trying to do this very thing, and some interesting ideas have surfaced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pianoprincess* Inactive Member |
i'd say the where is right here. well. not here on earth so to speak but sort of since the universe is still expanding, all of here used to be in a much smaller place. why do you say the universe is still expanding. that has not been proven. And the rules do say to be respectful. I'd just apreciate it if you wouldn't. =)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pianoprincess* Inactive Member |
There was no before the big bang for there to have been matter to exist in to be involved in the big bang. I fthere was no before, then there couldn't have been an after. and we are quite obviously after, according to your theory. =)
The big bang theory isn't about where did the universe come from so big bang/evolutionary thinkers don't have a theory for where the universe came from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
This is really over my head. I just read popularized versions of this and my degree is so old I forgot everything and it is only a BSc but....
It seems the universe HAD to "bang" because that is the nature of space time as described by general relativity. In addition, something called the Higg's field can supply an enormous pressure to cause something that is like "negative gravity" and force a tremendously fast expansion of space time (inflation). The "cooling" of the Higgs field is where a LOT of energy can come from. There was no "matter", in the sense we usually use, at first. Just energy but as it "cools" then matter can form. Remember matter and energy are all the same thing. I don't understand it well enough to explain and I'm not sure how simple it can be made. I suggest if you really want the answers that Brian Greene's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" is a good place to try. It pulls no punches but use no math. (The lack of math means you won't really "get it" but at least you are introduced to the ideas and the math would be waaaay to hairy for us to grapple with anyway.) Remember, we measure the expansion of space in a number of ways, there is no sensible doubt that it happens. We have, through general relativity (GR), good theoretical reasons to expect there to have been a big bang. GR has been tested, the predictions made about the nature of the universe that should have resulted have been tested and have proven out. The complete answer is not yet in place but you are not the only one asking questions. There are cosmolgists and physicists around the world attempting to answer the big question. The big bang is, it seems, now "old hat". That isn't an issue anymore. That is the simple stuff . As for time, the analogy that has been used here several times is that if you keep going north (or back in time) eventually you get to a place where there is no more "north" left (or any time before left). It is entirely possible to describe spacetime as haveing a point with no "before" just as there is a place on the earth with no "north". How accurate a description of the universe that is I can't judge but it looks pretty good so far. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-04-2006 03:02 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I fthere was no before, then there couldn't have been an after. and we are quite obviously after, according to your theory. =) Actually, there is no 'after' in a sense either. There is no after the universe any more than there is a before the universe as described by the big bang. The big bang merely describes the universe as-is. It can't explain what happens 'after' the universe, or 'before' the universe and it can't necessarily explain if it makes any sense to consider before and after anyway. All it can say is that the smaller the time dimension the hotter and denser the universe was, the greater the time dimension the cooler and more spread out the universe is. To us, time is divided into Past, present, future. When Time is 0s there is no past, so trying to work out what happened before it, according to our models of time, is practically impossible. What happens before time starts? What happens after time ends? How can something happen if there is no time for it to happen in? Big questions. There is an 'after' Time=0There is a 'before' Time=maximum All we can describe is the universe between these two points (if the latter point exists at all)
so big bang/evolutionary thinkers don't have a theory for where the universe came from? There are some interesting ideas, but no solid theories. As I said, it might not be possible to use the laws of nature to deduce how the laws of nature came into being...though we might uncover some of the meta-physics, its unlikely we'll know the whole caboodle. However, many people that accept General Relativity/Big Bang/Evolution have their own ideas about how the universe got here. Cavediver is the biggest big bang/relativity guy in these forums right now, and he believes that the Christian God brought the universe into existence and our theories merely describe that which God created. Read some of his posts to get a more accurate idea on his thoughts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pianoprincess* Inactive Member |
There are some interesting ideas, but no solid theories. As I said, it might not be possible to use the laws of nature to deduce how the laws of nature came into being... So it mostly liekly came form something other than 'natural' in the sense that we are used to speaking of?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So it mostly liekly came form something other than 'natural' in the sense that we are used to speaking of? No, not that at all. There is no indication that it was not natural, just not understood. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So it mostly liekly came form something other than 'natural' in the sense that we are used to speaking of? Where nature means = universe. Then yes. It could be that our natural laws are really only a subset of the Great Rules of Reality. The Great Rules are 'natural' but not in the way we traditionally mean natural. Or it could be that the Great Rules are heavenly in nature, or anything else that is beyond our ken.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024