Ramen666 Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 But like the OP the question seems to have not be answered I don't see anywhere because we are mostly just talking about the cause of why it happened which I would say acts of randomness, where exactly did the element hydrogen come from that caused the Big Bang in the first place? All I can say is, WOW!!! I am staring at my screen with my jaw dropped. Ramen, you are so misinformed about the theory, you need to start from scratch. I'm going to need to come back to this because I'm not sure where to start deconstucting your misconceptions. Um hello I, am asking EXACTLY the same thing the OP is asking? But thanks for the other members trying to explain in more detail instead of going on off on me, that is what this site is for, to learn, to question, to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramen666 Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Uh huh. Ramen, I hear you also went to college. Now think back to that time, it wasn't long ago was it? Remember back in Philosophy 101? You probably had a test at one point? Do you remember the professor asking a question about Ethics on the test? Do you remember your Chemistry professor asking you a similar question? No? Okay. There isn't a guy in a white lab coat doing experiments on, "ethics." No shit, Sherlock. Just forget I even brought that up, because clearly you misunderstood what I was saying and went wayyyyyyyy off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I don't understand this thread. The question seems to be... How did matter come into being? This a question on the ontology of matter. It is distinct from the epistemology of matter. What I tried to suggest, however many pages ago, is that matter is "less real" than are relations. Relations are reality. Reality is relations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 No shit, Sherlock. Just forget I even brought that up, because clearly you misunderstood what I was saying and went wayyyyyyyy off. Alright Ramen. If I misunderstood you, my apologies. I'm just not certain, if you think ethics somehow skewed scientists decision making when it came to developing BBT? Let's start over. What problems with Big Bang do you have, scientific ones, and maybe we can discuss them? I don't want links to articles or someone else's opinion, why do you think it's wrong for reasons other than it's too religious, or sounds too much like Genesis. You've said science doesn't have all the answers, which I agree with you. But I see it as a sliding scale of what is likely, not a right vs. wrong kind of thing. What do you think happened or how did the universe happen? I'm actually curious, and not trying to be a dick. Here's a great video on Youtube, Beyond The Big Bang. The video also discusses the formation of the elements, which is in regards to the OP. It shows how there is disagreement within the scientific community but they still operate within the rigorous world of science. The Lawrence Krauss video is also really good, I've watched it about three times, and a lot (probably most of it) still goes over my head. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Oh! We're discussing the Big Bang!!!!! Bosh Man I think the effort to understand the WHOLE universe is really kind of silly. We don't even understand organisms, much less the WHOLE universe. You may say... Why is that relevant? Life is a negligible part of the WHOLE universe. I say... bosh. That's just a matter of how we are sampling things. Mark me here. Biology will teach physics some things about causality and thus of the WHOLE of the whole universe. I crack myself up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I find it interesting anytime I question ANYTHING that isn't with the atheist bandwagon way of thinking, I get shot down everytime because I think for myself NOT what is popular. What the hell is the point of being open minded and free thinking, when you are just putting trust into something else and have to blindly accept what is popular? I am not even saying science is wrong for that matter, I am just saying and reminding, JUST because it is the most educated guess, and recongnized, does not equate it being the truth to everything. My opinion religion and schience just don't have all the answers, I don't, we don't as people. The subject of how it all began can be done in scientific theories and models. BUT do we as people and the science community know with absolute 100%, that is how it began? Is that not using a tad bit of faith and explaining something that no one really has seen? Do not question thy holy science! It is the one true knowledge. j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Wasn't that something about the occupy Wall Street movement? ... just kiddin' It's that damn Dark Matter, hogging all of the universe for themselves. That youtube video from the cosmologist a few pages back was really interesting. I like the idea of something from nothing cuz I'm sorta Quantum Mechanical Zennish mishmash anyway. He did say it wasn't your regular everyday 'nothing.' Dark matter was a special type of nothing. I like that. haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 semi-professional cosmologist here: big bang is not universally accepted, its just the best model we have right now, probably didnt even happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 semi-professional cosmologist here: big bang is not universally accepted, its just the best model we have right now, probably didnt even happen Like many people have said it's not the Theory of Everything or 100% true. I think in the future advancements in technology and further discoveries will enhance, refine and change our understanding of it. It's our best understanding, at the present time, of how our universe came about. So in a roundabout way I am kind of agreeing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prestissimo Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 semi-professional cosmologist here: big bang is not universally accepted, its just the best model we have right now, probably didnt even happen So could you give us some insight why you feel it 'probably' didn't happen? What others models are competing with the big bang that you find equally as likely? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 But like the OP the question seems to have not be answered I don't see anywhere because we are mostly just talking about the cause of why it happened which I would say acts of randomness, where exactly did the element hydrogen come from that caused the Big Bang in the first place? All I can say is, WOW!!! I am staring at my screen with my jaw dropped. Ramen, you are so misinformed about the theory, you need to start from scratch. I'm going to need to come back to this because I'm not sure where to start deconstucting your misconceptions. Um hello I, am asking EXACTLY the same thing the OP is asking? But thanks for the other members trying to explain in more detail instead of going on off on me, that is what this site is for, to learn, to question, to think. The OP made this thread because they had questions. They wanted to understand what the theory stated. You on the other hand, have no problem criticizing the theory when you don't even know the most basic parts of it. And you do this calling yourself a skeptic. I personally make an effort to study and learn about something before formulating an opinion on it. Anyway, all that existed at the instant of the big bang was energy. As space and time expanded energy density reached a point where fundemantal particles could condense out of this energy via E=MC^2. This is the same thing we can replicate in particle accelerators like the LHC (one of the reasons they call it a Big Bang machine). These particles eventually formed atoms of matter and anti-matter with a slight asymetry towards matter for reasons we still don't understand. These atoms annihilate releasing pure energy as matter and anti-matter do again with an asymetry towards matter until a universe composed primarily of matter and energy is left. This matter was about 75% hydrogen and about 25% helium with trace lithium. These elements condensed into the first stars which produced the higher elements. Keep in mind that I am just touching the surface of the theory that most directly addresses the question you asked. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzy Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 This is not so much a smoking gun as a combined hole-in-one, bullseye and slamdunk! Years before the COBE satellite was launched, cosmologists had computed the exact value and shape of the curve they expected the CMB's power spectrum to have. Then, in 1990, when that probe transmitted it's results back to Earth, the curve that was plotted out matched the predicted one so accurately that predicted theoretical curve is obscured by COBE's data points. The two, prediction and observation, are exactly the same. I remember learning about the CMB and how it was discovered was one of my epiphany moments while deconverting. Long before it was detected, a Russian matemathician (I don't remember his name, sorry) made calculations about the Big Bang theory and predicted that if the Big Bang really happened there should be traces of it in space still and it should have such and such properties - and he gave the numbers based on his calculation (temperature, wavelength etc). A couple of decades passed and two physicists accidentally discovered the CMB (while trying to make an experiment about something else with an antenna). And it turned out the Russian matematician was right! The CMB had almost the exact same properties that he - and the Big Bang theory - predicted! While I was reading this I was still a Christian, although on the verge of deconverting, and I will never forget it, because it was such a "Wow!" moment to me. Actually this was when I started to understand that scientific theories are more than just educated guesses and by no means can I place them on the same shelf as Bible stories. PS: I noticed and find it a bit sad that Ramen totally ignored your post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 This is not so much a smoking gun as a combined hole-in-one, bullseye and slamdunk! Years before the COBE satellite was launched, cosmologists had computed the exact value and shape of the curve they expected the CMB's power spectrum to have. Then, in 1990, when that probe transmitted it's results back to Earth, the curve that was plotted out matched the predicted one so accurately that predicted theoretical curve is obscured by COBE's data points. The two, prediction and observation, are exactly the same. I remember learning about the CMB and how it was discovered was one of my epiphany moments while deconverting. Long before it was detected, a Russian matemathician (I don't remember his name, sorry) made calculations about the Big Bang theory and predicted that if the Big Bang really happened there should be traces of it in space still and it should have such and such properties - and he gave the numbers based on his calculation (temperature, wavelength etc). Yes Suzy, your memory serves you right. If you look on this page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation ...you'll see a 'Timeline of Observations of the CMB'. This gives all the relevant info. A couple of decades passed and two physicists accidentally discovered the CMB (while trying to make an experiment about something else with an antenna). And it turned out the Russian matematician was right! The CMB had almost the exact same properties that he - and the Big Bang theory - predicted! Yep! Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson, working at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmdel_Horn_Antenna , amde the accidental discovery of the CMB in 1965. While I was reading this I was still a Christian, although on the verge of deconverting, and I will never forget it, because it was such a "Wow!" moment to me. Actually this was when I started to understand that scientific theories are more than just educated guesses and by no means can I place them on the same shelf as Bible stories. I'm really glad you made that final step out of darkness and ignorance, into the light of understanding. Doubly so, seeing that it was Astronomy (which I find facsinating) that helped set you free. PS: I noticed and find it a bit sad that Ramen totally ignored your post... Ummm...well, not exactly Suzy. He did write this... "But thanks for the other members trying to explain in more detail instead of going on off on me, that is what this site is for, to learn, to question, to think." So, if I'm included in that number, then at least he's aware and thankful for the explanations given. BAA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzy Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Ummm...well, not exactly Suzy. He did write this... "But thanks for the other members trying to explain in more detail instead of going on off on me, that is what this site is for, to learn, to question, to think." So, if I'm included in that number, then at least he's aware and thankful for the explanations given. BAA. Oh, I missed that, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Come on, people! Don't leave me hanging! Talk more! I've read the whole thread, and so far, these are what the emoticons are saying: More!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kruszer Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 Thanks so much for everyone's comments! I'm slowly making my way through all the posts and links and digesting things... sorry for going silent on the thread I started. I'm still here.. reading one page at a time... There's some really good stuff in here! Might be worth pinning the thread? I'm sure this is a common question for many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kruszer Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 semi-professional cosmologist here: big bang is not universally accepted, its just the best model we have right now, probably didnt even happen So could you give us some insight why you feel it 'probably' didn't happen? What others models are competing with the big bang that you find equally as likely? Seconding that request. Noggy, you're being summoned. Could the ex-Christian by the name of Noggy please come to the forums? That's the ex-Christian by the name of Noggy to the forums? Your lights are on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I've heard the worst thing about the Big Bang theory is the name. It didn't go "bang". It would have been more like a sudden expansion of space. People relate to firecrackers because they have seen them. But the Big Bang would have been unlike air exploding through space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I've heard the worst thing about the Big Bang theory is the name. It didn't go "bang". It would have been more like a sudden expansion of space. People relate to firecrackers because they have seen them. But the Big Bang would have been unlike air exploding through space. True, it was originally coined by Fred Hoyle, an opponent of early BBT at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 It requires a lot of things that we don't see, and are even meagerly hopeful for. The need for dark energy to exist, and the complete lack of evidence for it is astonishing. There are better models of our universe that don't predict any "bang" at all. They usually work by changing the geometry of space with time, so that there is some expansion and contraction, but not on the scale of the big bang. Its not good theory to predict something that you can't ever prove is true. The big bang is a nice little idea, but you can't prove it, and there are lots of things that don't exist that have to be around for it to work. Also, by having a model that doesn't have a "beginning" works a whole lot better than a model that 'creates' time. That can't even happen. ** The biggest thing that goes against the big bang existing is the fact that we haven't detected graviational waves. we our examing space around us accurately enough that we should be able to see gravitational waves on the order of the kind that was produced near the beginning of the big bang, but there haven't been any. Nothing. Nada. The big bang rides on this stuff, and we haven't seen a single scrap of evidence for it. The only thing we see is things losing energy through gravitation, which we just assumed would take the form of waves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 It requires a lot of things that we don't see, and are even meagerly hopeful for. The need for dark energy to exist, and the complete lack of evidence for it is astonishing. There are better models of our universe that don't predict any "bang" at all. They usually work by changing the geometry of space with time, so that there is some expansion and contraction, but not on the scale of the big bang. There is no evidence that the universe has ever contracted. In fact there is evidence to the contrary. We can measure red shift to nearly the edge of the visible universe. Everything outside the local group has been moving away from us at an accelerating rate. If there were periods of contraction we would see regions of alternating red shift and blue shift as we looked farther and farther out. Its not good theory to predict something that you can't ever prove is true. The big bang is a nice little idea, but you can't prove it, and there are lots of things that don't exist that have to be around for it to work. Can you ellaborate on this? How can it not be proven? Also, by having a model that doesn't have a "beginning" works a whole lot better than a model that 'creates' time. That can't even happen. On what basis are you making this assurtion? If there was no begining there would be no particle horizon. We would be able to see much, much farther than 13.7 billion light years. ** The biggest thing that goes against the big bang existing is the fact that we haven't detected graviational waves. we our examing space around us accurately enough that we should be able to see gravitational waves on the order of the kind that was produced near the beginning of the big bang, but there haven't been any. Nothing. Nada. The big bang rides on this stuff, and we haven't seen a single scrap of evidence for it. The only thing we see is things losing energy through gravitation, which we just assumed would take the form of waves. This is more of a hole in the theory of Relativity than the Big Bang. If relatvity is spot on and our technology is advanced enough then we should be seeing them from other sources like black holes and binary pairs, but we don't see these either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 It requires a lot of things that we don't see, and are even meagerly hopeful for. The need for dark energy to exist, and the complete lack of evidence for it is astonishing. There are better models of our universe that don't predict any "bang" at all. They usually work by changing the geometry of space with time, so that there is some expansion and contraction, but not on the scale of the big bang. There is no evidence that the universe has ever contracted. In fact there is evidence to the contrary. We can measure red shift to nearly the edge of the visible universe. Everything outside the local group has been moving away from us at an accelerating rate. If there were periods of contraction we would see regions of alternating red shift and blue shift as we looked farther and farther out. Wait a minute. I thought that the BBT came first and had to be modified to include the new evidence for Dark Energy? And that it is the evidence for Dark Energy that is driving that part of cosmology. Do I have it backwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 This is more of a hole in the theory of Relativity than the Big Bang. If relatvity is spot on and our technology is advanced enough then we should be seeing them from other sources like black holes and binary pairs, but we don't see these either. And this is the catch, if GR is bullshit, and there are no gravitational waves, then there can't be a big bang. Because the big bang requires the expanding of spacetime at the same 'time' as the expansion of matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 This is more of a hole in the theory of Relativity than the Big Bang. If relatvity is spot on and our technology is advanced enough then we should be seeing them from other sources like black holes and binary pairs, but we don't see these either. And this is the catch, if GR is bullshit, and there are no gravitational waves, then there can't be a big bang. Because the big bang requires the expanding of spacetime at the same 'time' as the expansion of matter. I don't see why gravitational waves are related to space-time expansion. Could you explain further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 This is more of a hole in the theory of Relativity than the Big Bang. If relatvity is spot on and our technology is advanced enough then we should be seeing them from other sources like black holes and binary pairs, but we don't see these either. And this is the catch, if GR is bullshit, and there are no gravitational waves, then there can't be a big bang. Because the big bang requires the expanding of spacetime at the same 'time' as the expansion of matter. I don't see why gravitational waves are related to space-time expansion. Could you explain further? GR says that spacetime is an actual fabric, that it is effected by gravity, and bent by energy. The Big Bang Theory says that this fabric was created during the Big Bang and its just been expanding slightly faster than the actually matter part of the universe (and accelerating). If there are no GR waves, then spacetime is NOT a fabric, and it does NOT bend, and it was NOT created during the big bang. Meaning that space is static, and has always been, or was created by some other process. Perhaps matter was originally in a tiny point, but I don't think we have much evidence to see that space was originally there, yet. And some people would say that there has been little evidence for contraction, but there is little evidence to expansion except for only part way back. You can trace the expansion of space backwards, almost like a cone, but REALLY we only see a little tiny bit of the base of the cone, and to assume that it just keeps going like that to a point is crazyness. The part of the observable universe we see, and the part that actually exists is mindblowingly small. The BBT is a pretty decent little model, and its something that has caught the publics eye, it really is just something similar to the Bohr model of the atom right now. It's the best way we have to explain it, everyone has heard of it, so everything assumes its true. It's not. Here is something fun, I'll put it in a new thread too: http://onemorelevel.com/game/scale_of_the_universe_2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts