Big Bang... was it a science experiment?

Hi all... im new to this site and looking forward to getting some things off my chest. To start with, after reading a few books like "The Universe Next Door" Marcus Chown, "How to Build a Time Machine" Paul Davies, "The Elegent Universe" etc etc ive come to the conclusion that the most logical and evident cause of the big bang was intelegent life in some other environment (not our universe): The big bang was a deliberate and successful attempt at creating an environment suitable for life. I could go on and on about the evidence and reasons why i feel this way but i think ill just wait for a responce first.

Hi AbelKane,Welcome to EvC etc etc...One question to springs to mind immediately is who or what created the intelligent beings who set up the Big Bang?PE

Be very careful about using probability arguments based upon supposed ranges of fundamental constants and the values that allow universes like ours versus other universes that wont support us. These anthropic arguments can be fun for discussion but hard to take seriously.How do we know the ranges that such constants are allowed in these calculations? Answer - we don't.

The most logical explanation of the BigB. is it happened. Saying Intellegent beings caused it is just as presumptive as saying God caused it. Or Gods caused it. Or I caused it.

I'll support you on this one AbelKane. Anything before the Big Bang is outside the realm of science, and one opinion really doesn't refute another. The ultimate cause, be it chance or intended, will probably never be decided. Science will probably stop at saying that chance alone COULD have been the ultimate cause, but that is about the extent of science's ability with regards to the start of the universe. Our universe could be the result of a time travelling causal loop, where an intelligent race sometime in the future is able to go back in time and start the universe. Options abound, and not all have to be supernatural (eg time travel).

Yeah i agree: you could go on forever asking who created the creator. I suppose im too ambitious when it comes to my questions: I really want to know the answer to the biggest question to them all - what caused reality, why and how did the universe begin, bla, bla, bla. The truth is I often find the hardcore science behind cosmology and ultimate reality too complex and boring... imparticularly with regard to string theory... does anyone get string theory?... i spose after all this its just easier just to speculate based on what you know!

What fun is science if you cant speculate on what we dont know based on what we do know? What i was actually looking for when i posted my view on the B.B. is any further arguments either for or against the notion that the constants of our universe are too supportive of life to be a co-incidence... however, obviously, based on the anthropic and infinate multiverse principle a life supporting universe is inevitable rather than deliberate. i spose i could have answered my question all along, i was just hoping for replies in support of the deliberate cause to the B.B. as it is much more satisfying emotionally, giving some sort of meaning and purpose to the existance of life. I realise that discusion in reply to my view is only going to go in circles!

Here is a little explanation I gave about Big bang and the string theory. I posted this in the evolution section. Too lazy to retype everything.

quote:

---

Right now, the observable universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Why it is accelerating rather than deccelerating is another matter. So, physicist tried to see backward in time by making the model of the universe going backward from where they are going now. This simulation ends up with the entire visible universe going back to a single point. Of course, that is the easy way of saying it. Behind that is a lot of math, which I'm not at the level to fully understand all of it yet.

​

Anyway, that is why they proposed the big bang model of creation. You have to understand something about the big bang model that most people don't pay attention to. When everything exploded, it wasn't just mass and energy that expanded. Space-time itself also expanded to almost the size of the visible universe today in 10^-100th of a second. That's .00000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second. Again, in order to make sense of all the data people have gathered so far, they had to make the big bang model that way, with space-time expanding like that, in order for the data to fit together. Everything there is purely theoretical.

​

Another thing I want to go over is the string theory, because I can't really explain anything without touching on the string theory.

​

We know that everything that has mass is made of atoms, which can be broken down to subatomic particles like electrons and protons, which can be broken down to quarks, which can be further broken down to ups and downs, etc... So, does matter keep breaking up to smaller and smaller parts, or does it finally end somewhere if you break things down small enough?

​

The string theory proposes that matter DOES break down to a unit where it can't be broken down any further. This infinitesimal unit is like a rubber band looking shape that vibrates. Now, the frequencies of vibration actually tell us what the particular matter is, say a gold atom or a hydrogen atom.

​

When you vibrate a string on a 2 dimensional plane, you only get a certain number of possibilities for the frequencies of vibration. If you add in a 3rd dimension, then you get more possibilities for the vibrations. This is all math by the way. If you put everything we know about the universe into account, you need to put 10 dimensions in the equations in order for the string theory to hold and the universe to exist like we know it today. Again, this is lots and lots and lots of mathematics, not just speculations.

​

Therefore, mathematicians and physicists concluded that the universe that we live in actually have 10 dimensions rather than 4, like Einstein proposed.

​

Ok, 1-D is a dot, 2-D is a plane, 3-D is space, and 4-D is space-time. That is the limit of our perception of the universe. What the heck do the other 6 dimensions look like???

---

I am very confident that a lot of questions we have about the beginnings of the universe and whatnot will be answered once we find out what the other 6 dimensions look like.

I was not aware of any previous models of the Big Bang that said such an expansion was even possible. Where did you get that from?

Here is a (relatively) concise explanation of the current big bang modelObject not found! | The University of ChicagoRead down to Alan Guth and his theory of inflation and the explanation of not only the theory but the prediction that was confirmed by the WMAP satellite data on cosmic microwave background (CMB).{{added}}Note that the Paul Steinhardt at the bottom is the same one that is on the ekpyrosis theory team in the next message[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 04-02-2004]

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Have you heard about the ekpyrosis model from string theory that postulates colliding space-time "branes" in hyper-dimensional space to cause the same effect as big bang without inflation (or dark matter or dark energy)? Science.com article - 'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory (click)Wondering what your take is one it.

quote:

---

I was not aware of any previous models of the Big Bang that said such an expansion was even possible. Where did you get that from?

---

It would help if you quote or tell me the part you question.

You conclusion only shows the absurdity of the modern understanding of the universe.
For a simple common sense description of creation you may see the link below.
Page not found - WORLD MYSTERIES

quote:

---

Space-time itself also expanded to almost the size of the visible universe today in 10^-100th of a second.

---

I'm refering to this bit. Could you please clarify what you mean with "Space-time itself"? Wouldn't such a specific number rely on the asumption of a finite universe?

quote:

---

I'm refering to this bit. Could you please clarify what you mean with "Space-time itself"? Wouldn't such a specific number rely on the asumption of a finite universe?

---

Yes and no.Remember that this particular model is came up with some scientists in order to explain certain things. For example, based on the conventional view of the big bang, that if space-time was already there and that only matter and energy exploded in the big bang, then why are there certain places in the universe where light haven't reached us yet? Therefore, some scientists proposed that space-time itself expanded at the moment of the big bang. Yes, then this model proposes the the finite universe.