A Big Bang Misconception

Most common misconception:

"...the big bang started as a point which led to an explosion of space and matter.."

There are many misconceptions associated with a statement of this nature. One, The Big Bang Model that is currently used by most cosmologists, is one that doesn't describe the universe expanding 'from a point' as that would imply a center of the universe. Second, nowhere will you find a legitimate model of the Big Bang Theory which depicts a 'chemical explosion' of some kind which Creationist's seem to believe is the case.

There are plenty of older models which depicted a 'point', an 'explosion', etc. which relied on specific conditions which have since then been proven false. In mainstream cosmology, you will get laughed at for trying to push the idea of a 'point' and an 'explosion'.

It is not that 'all things are expanding from a point,' rather, all things are moving away from each other as space-time stretches.

"The big bang is the expansion or stretching of space. It is not that things are flying out from a point. Rather, all things are moving away from each other. It is like having an infinite rubber sheet with people sitting on it. Stretch the rubber sheet, and all the people move away from one another. Each thinks they are at the center of an explosion. It is an optical illusion - everybody moves away from everybody else and there is no center.

Run the story going back in time and the sheet was more and more unstretched and the people were closer together. When everybody is so close they are on top of one another, that is is the beginning of the big bang picture - the cosmic singularity. At that time, the universe has nearly infinite density and temperature. "

- http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/

The Big Bang Theory is NOT about the origin of the universe -- it's primary focus is the development of the universe over time. We measure the Big Bang Theory through numerous different methods (expansion of the CMB, COBE measurements, Doppler-effect and frequency shift of light, etc.) and we can derive certain information based on observations.

The Big Bang Model does not imply that the universe was ever 'point-like' and that the origin of the universe was an explosion of matter into already existing space. It's not thought of as an 'explosion' or a 'point' anywhere, by cosmologists.

There are plenty of theorists out there that use the data collected from the Big Bang Model, to produce 'possible' explainations regarding our universes origin, however, no one claims these are fact. Also, there are many many explainations for our universe which lie at the heart of Quantum Mechanics (such as "inflationary" theory), which if you are familiar with, you would understand the truly strange nature of The Explicate Order, or physical reality, in comparison with the Implicate Order, or Quantum Reality.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

so do you think that the universe was always existing, but only just began to drift apart with the Big Bang?

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/

Cool site. Looks like I'm not going to be very productive at work today :o

There are many misconceptions associated with a statement of this nature. One, The Big Bang Model that is currently used by most cosmologists, is one that doesn't describe the universe expanding 'from a point' as that would imply a center of the universe.

I think I have a good understanding of the BB from typing with cavediver, if you haven't typed with him then your missing out 'cause he kicks ass.

So, I don't want you to think that I'm arguing for a point-model of the BB but I do wanna discuss it.

that is is the beginning of the big bang picture - the cosmic singularity. At that time, the universe has nearly infinite density and temperature.

Infinite density, eh? Defining density as mass/volume, we can have infinite density with either infinite mass or zero volume.

When everybody is so close they are on top of one another,

Sounds like finite mass with zero volume to me. What do you call something that has zero volume? I call it a point.

Its my understanding that the problem with a point-model is the breakdown of the physics as we get closer to a point. And the more well defined the point gets, the blurrier it gets, so to speak type.

So, even if the model doesn't include a point for a beginning, it seems to me that the beginning was very point-like.

so do you think that the universe was always existing, but only just began to drift apart with the Big Bang?

With the universe being all of space and time, do you think it could exist before a time when time was created?

Using our time as the reference for before and after, how can we refer to a point in time before the reference?

The old analogy of the globe as a model of the universe starting at the north pole and moving towards the equator as time passes, space expands with the lines of latitude. If we trace back in time, go north, when we get to the beginning we are at the north pole. To go farther back in time would be to go north. How do you go north of the north pole? Its the same for time before the Big Bang.

There's other models of course, look through that link in the OP.

Also, there's a lot of Big Bang threads here that answer your question, and probably your others. Just search for Big Bang and start reading.

There are many misconceptions associated with a statement of this nature. One, The Big Bang Model that is currently used by most cosmologists, is one that doesn't describe the universe expanding 'from a point' as that would imply a center of the universe. Second, nowhere will you find a legitimate model of the Big Bang Theory which depicts a 'chemical explosion' of some kind which Creationist's seem to believe is the case.

The plain fact is that the original expansion model was that space-time singularity did originate as a speck of energy. And if you don't agree with that, then you should write to certain textbook companies that have it in their books as some sort of unassailable fact.

Here's what I've found in a 2003 college textbook:

“In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.”

So allow me to clarify by paraphrasing: Nothing exploded, and here we are. It goes on to say:

“In the beginning all the energy condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck. That speck began to expand. The space-energy speck, now the size of a baseball, began cooling off and matter condensed from energy. By three minutes, atomic nuclei appeared.”

The belief that certain cosmologists think that the universe started out as an energy-speck isn't a creationist belief, it was a belief that was held up for years by secular science.

Here's what I've found in a 2003 college textbook: “In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.”

Which book is that? I've seen the exact same quote creditted as being HBJ General Science, 1989. Hovind uses that source as a slide in one of his seminars.

So allow me to clarify by paraphrasing: Nothing exploded, and here we are.

By an amazing stroke of coincidence, Hovind paraphrases in a similar way:

quote:

---

What? Nothing exploded, and here we are? Explain that to me, would you please?

---

Let's see you give the isbn number of the 2003 'College text', because it is quite inaccurate.

Which book is that? I've seen the exact same quote creditted as being HBJ General Science, 1989. Hovind uses that source as a slide in one of his seminars.

Chemistry, 6th edition; Houghton Mifflin 2003

By an amazing stroke of coincidence, Hovind paraphrases in a similar way:

He's right to be leary of such a pernicious theory being taught as fact, though I don't particularly like Hovind. He's a bit too antagonistic which I think detracts from his points.

In any case, perhaps a crusade to correct antiquated theories should be in order. The OP seems peeved that people actually think that the Big Bang was not the product of an energy speck, but the problem lays wholly with the people that print the material. Its not the laymans fault that they didn't know any better.

Let's see you give the isbn number of the 2003 'College text', because it is quite inaccurate.

I don't know what an 'isbn number' is.

Does it look like this? Chemistry ,6/e

I don't know what an 'isbn number' is.

In most (95%+) books it is a 10 digit (or in the last year or so 13 digit) number that can be found on the outside cover or more usually the inside page opposite the verso page (the one with the title and author in large letters at the beginning of the book) It may be hidden among the cataloging data that looks like an old card from pre-online catalog times.

ISBN, while not always unique, should exactly peg which exact title when the subject is known.

{Abe - for last sentence and for subtitle as per admin suggestion}

This message has been edited by anglagard, 05-11-2006 09:43 PM

Does it look like this? Chemistry ,6/e

I don't know, that might be it. I got it and a bunch of others at the Northern Arizona University library. I viewed through them and wrote down the anamoles I found. Then I composed a paper on it and wrote down my referrences. Why do you ask?

In most (95%+) books it is a 10 digit (or in the last year or so 13 digit) number that can be found on the outside cover or more usually the inside page opposite the verso page (the one with the title and author in large letters at the beginning of the book)

Yeah, I just figured out what it was when I looked in a search engine. Thanks.

Yeah, I just figured out what it was when I looked in a search engine. Thanks.

For confirmation, I wish you had looked in a book instead.