Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

quote:

---

I've never observed an explosion that created empty space before, have you? Or an explosion that acted like a balloon? And you are saying the definitions of science are ludicrous?

​

And dude, I didn't come up with the definitions of Scientific proof. If you don't like them, talk to the braniacs who came up with them. The real thing I want answered though, is this: The laws of physics...have they always been around, or did the come in with the Big Bang?

---

First of all, the Big Bang, despite it's name, isn't really like any bangs you can hear on earth. It's more like blowing up our analogous baloon, so that it expands very rapidly.Second of all, we DO observe that space is expanding, by looking at other galaxies.Plus there are several experiments being conducted with particle accelerators that provides very useful information on what would happen to particles at the beginning of time.But no, you can't do big bang all over again in your lab and observe it. It is not really required though, because we can see the after-effects of it.

"we DO observe that space is expanding, by looking at other galaxies."So the galaxies are moving outward, I agree. Doesn't tell me that there was a Bang. Effects could be the same if a Higher Being set things in motion.What would happen if there was a 2nd Big Bang, somewhere else, and it's resulting debris ran into our Big Bang?Edit- And in the example of your balloon, you have a mechanism that you begin with. What was the begining mechanism in the "real" Big Bang?[This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-14-2004]

Uhm, there can't be a second big bang inside our universe...Wether or not two universes can merge is unknown, because we can't detect any other universes. If they can ever collide, or whatever it would be that universes does, it would probably be something similar to two soapbubbles merging into one larger one. But, that's totally speculation.And you can argue everything with "God faked it" but you'll never get anything useful out of that.Regarding the 'mechanism' for the expansion of the universe, I believe that is a field which is currently being explored, but there seems to be something about space that makes it expand regardless of the events in it.[This message has been edited by Melchior, 03-14-2004]

God created something, and it starts drifting around. That should not be confused with the idiotic reasoning that God would fake it. You should not confuse my argument with that stupidicy. And arn't you ruling out conclusions without evidence? How can you be sure that there can't be a second Big Bang in our universe?

Because if you shrink a baloon, it is physically impossible for it to turn into two smaller baloons.If you at any point of the coming explanation doesn't follow my reasoning, please say so.If we 'play' the universe backward, space would contract instead of expand. Like letting the air out of a baloon.Galaxies would come closer and closer together. The baloon gets smaller and smaller.If we can rewind time for long enough, there would eventually come a time when the universe is really small but still contain all the matter and energy. That is, the amount of rubber in the baloon is always the same, but it gets 'thicker' the more air you let out.Rewind time further, and the universe would get smaller and smaller. If there is no limit to how small it can be, it would inevitably contract into a singularity. This gets a bit tricky to do with a baloon, though.The big bang can't happen at any random time. It can only happen at the beginning of the universe, and there can only be one such starting-singularity per universe.

quote:

---

God created something, and it starts drifting around. That should not be confused with the idiotic reasoning that God would fake it. You should not confuse my argument with that stupidicy.

---

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word faked. That's really a discussion for your Appearant Age thread, so I'll mention this once because it ties in lightly with the subject, then leave it for that thread.If God created the universe in 'mid-time', with the illusion of a past, but made it in such a way that it's impossible to tell it appart from a universe with a past, I see that as for whatever reason decieving anyone using their reasoning and observational abilities given by God to examine the universe.If God REALLY wanted people to know about such an universe, he would put undeniable scientifically testable clues in it. Otherwise we can't ever tell the difference.[This message has been edited by Melchior, 03-14-2004]

Nope. Why would you expect to? By all indications it's only ever happened once. Of course not. Simply that you've misunderstood the definition of science. "Repeatablilty" doesn't refer to repeating history. It refers to repeating observations and replicating experiments. Anyone can look and observe the cosmic microwave background and it's uniformity in all directions. Anyone with a supercollider can approximate conditions nanoseconds after the Big Bang. Anyone who observes the redshifts of distant objects can come to the conclusion that all galaxies in the universe are retreating from each other in a manner consistent with an expansion of space.Big Bang cosmology is science because it's based on repeatable observation and experiment, just like all other scientific models. Maybe you could cite the source you're using for your definitions? I can't imagine how this question could be settled. How would you possibly know what conditions are like before/outside the universe?

True, but that itself would be a measurable path indicitive of a 2-d geometry other than flat. Likewise, any tringular measure would have angles that add up to less than 180 degrees. My point was that you could measure things in 2-d space and determine it wasn't "flat".
Likewise, in our universe, there are things we can measure to determing if we are a in a universe with a pac-man like geometery, (if total energy and mass content is over critical value), open saddle spatial geometry if universe is below critical value, or flat. Of course, space can curve on the small scale structure as well, ie around any mass.

Actually, space is anything but empty. Almost all of space has energy, often in the form of light, traveling through it. Normal matter composes only a small portion of the universes matter/energy total. Additionally, even in a vacuum, there exists "virtual particles", or particles that spontanously generate and decay in time periods so short they can't be directly measured. However, the experitmental evidence, such as the casmir effect, support this model. Space isn't expanding into "other space", its just expanding. Ie draw a small circle on a balloon, and blow it up. The circle gets bigger. Its the same space expanding.
As for the physical rules that the universe opperates by, it may well be a simple function of space. However, that is personal conjecture. I am not sure if there is a theoretical approach to this question, or if it is currently outside scientific perview.

Your ability to present the current state of scientific thought in a calm and sensible manner to an, apparently, hostile human is remarkable. Keep up the good work.I think the baloon example is great! I wish there was a good four-dimensional example but only the universe itself seems to give that. Space is expanding away from the earth in all directions. This does not imply that the earth is the center of the universe; in fact, all space is expanding away from all space if I understand the current state of scientific thought.I am also impressed with the inflation theory. I think pro-matter and anti-matter (true nothing) is a great concept.The two of you mentioned that there is not much in space except some light (and clumps of matter obviously). I think the underlying structure of space is gravity and that gravity permeates everything. At least one very early scientist thought there was an ether and I think gravity will prove to be it.Best wishes,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

quote:

---

Ok, so what I'm to take from this is that space (that is: physical area devoid of matter and energy) isn't devoid of the laws of nature/physics/etc...therefore you don't consider it empty?

---

If it helps, "space" (as in the spacetime of GR) is just another name for the gravitational field. In other words, the sources for gravity are also the sources of "space" itself. Take away all sources of energy and spacetime itself would disappear.In that sense, there is no such thing as truely empty space. The expanding space is empty of matter, however.

quote:

---

And it's as these laws are expanding with the universe, it is "conquering" space with no laws, and making it space with laws?

---

What does that mean? How can descriptive laws expand?[This message has been edited by Beercules, 03-14-2004][This message has been edited by Beercules, 03-14-2004]

Hi Navy,
I have read through this whole thread and it seems alot of good information is being exchanged and shared. As I understand it the B.B. was what was referred to as "a quantum fluctuation" that occured. QM is strange and on a subatomic level all manner of everyday concepts seem to evaporate into absurdity. Physics can attempt to explain mathmatically what is happening but there is no one who can claim they know for certain how the BB occured. I think it was Dr. Heisenburg who said if you think you understand QM then you obviously do not. The Copenhagen interpretation sort of closed the door on the matter in so far as to say we may never know because we can not for certain nail down how reality on that level behaves. The B.B. is one of those little jokes God has played on mankind. He has allowed humans a glimpse of how he might explain reality in terms of QM but as soon as one looks the fact that one looked scues the perception of the outcome. The BB is a mystery that still confounds and physics has formulated through mathmatics how it may have occured but singularities that are predicted are just that predictions. The BB. Theory is just the best explaination science has at this time, but as Crash frog stated a unifying theory will bring more understanding to the whole picture. I do not see anyone stating that The BB is a fact. It is just the best model available to explain our universe. 6 Day creation is just as fine but it does not explain alot of the finer points. Like why the physical laws behave as they do. The body of knowlege aquired over the last 200 years is astounding let alone from the last 2000 years. And I am certain that someday humans will aquire the knowlege of how a quantum fluctuation begat conciousness. I am beginning to think that everything is unified, I am beginning to believe in the holographic universe that all space/time/energy/matter are different manifestations of one thing. I would call that one thing God. JMHO

I think that this post illistrates that even those who buy into the hypthosis of the Big Bang, arn't truly uniform in thier beliefs of it.
Not just a Creationism characteristic, after all.I would also like to point out, with both hypothosis', there are some things that could 'go either way'. That is to say: data that is consistent with both. This does not mean that God 'faked' it. It only means that the data in these cases could be interpreted to represent both.
I am never going to argue that God 'faked' anything. I firmly believe he had no need to.One last thing. After looking up definitions, it appears that I was incorrect about my use of science. Kinda' put my foot in my mouth there, eh? Still don't think BB has holes that are apparent no matter what definition of science is used.Joe[This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-16-2004]

It would be more accurate to say that, since few (none?) of us are cosmologist or high-energy physicists, our casual understanding of the theory is permiated by our own misunderstandings. Among actual astrophysicists you'd find considerably greater agreement.The other thing is that we're trying to explain the theory to you without the math. The theory is the math. Without the math all we have to offer you are analogies of varying accuracy. You could poll the astrophysicists for explanations - if you asked for analogies they all would differ slightly; if you asked for the math they'd all give you the same equations. I think you'll find considerably more agreement among the scientific community than among Creationists. Certainly it's not lockstep agreement - it's differing viewpoints involved in constant dialogue. That's what makes science work. When was the last time there was "dialogue" between Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind, for instance?

The answer to your question is around mid to late 2002, unless there is other public dialog of which I am unaware. See Missing Link | Answers in Genesis .Rhetorical questions are risky; sometimes they have answers. Cheers -- Sylas