What is the origen,(fact, theory or speculation) of the infinitly small point of energy that started it all?
later,
chappy
Big Bang Question
by chappy 25 Replies latest jw friends
-
chappy
-
nytelecom1
i dont know the origin but i do have a picture of it,
it looks like this --------> .
-
Simon
gravity & time linked
before there was a universe there would be no time
cause does not have to preceed effect (quantum theory)er...
I dunno !
-
Hojon
That can't be known, so it's a question not for science but philosophy. Causes are not the realm of science, just descriptions of things.
We can recreate condition is a lab back to about 10^-30 seconds after the Big Bang, which is cool. :)
-
Amazing
Hi Hojon: You said,
"That can't be known, so it's a question not for science but philosophy. Causes are not the realm of science, just descriptions of things.
Could you be more specific and cite some credible source references for this statement.
You also said,
"We can recreate condition is a lab back to about 10^-30 seconds after the Big Bang, which is cool. :)
Interesting lab recreation. Again, would you be more specific and cite some credible source references for this statement.
Chappy: The book Brief History of Time by Steven Hawking, who now holds the same universoity chair as did Isaac Newton, laid out much about this issue in layperson terms. Also, you can find much on the Internet searcg engines. If you have trouble, let me know.
Theoretically, all matter in the universe is believed to be condensed at one time into a single mass with no space, such that light cannot escape. The mass so great that it is reduced to a point of singularity. Then, for reasons unknown, that is, no one has yet devised a good theory (at least not to my satisfaction) as to why the super-dense mass exploded and expanded into the universe we have today. But, there is believed to be a scientific explanation as to this "Cause". The "Oscillating" theory holds that matter has condensed and expanded over and over for all time. This would, in part, account for a point of singularity, where mass gets so condensed that it explodes once again into billions of galazies and trillions of stars.
The "Cause" that Hojon must be referring to, from a philosophical perspective, is whether this would be by God or some other unknown higher power. - Amazing
-
ballistic
Didn't you know?
There's universes popping up in all kinds of places.
I just accidently sat on one.I guess they went from big bang to black hole!
-
chappy
Amazing,
You said:
"Theoretically, all matter in the universe is believed to be condensed at one time into a single mass with no space, such that light cannot escape.
Pre big bang theory belief held that matter and the universe has always existed. What you're saying is that matter either always existed in a finite point, then becoming the universe as we know it or that matter always is/has been oscillating between the two states.
Isn't this just a variation of the old belief, leaving us with the same basic question?later,
chappy -
bboyneko
I was reading a post about the Big Bang, and got interested. So I did a bit of research. Here's what I came up with.
The Big KA-BOOM!!!!
In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning. -Leon Lederman The God Particle
Big Bang theory has been used to justify the exsistance of God many times.
Albert Einstein's reaction to the consequences of his own general theory of relativity appear to acknowledge the threat of an encounter with God. Through the equations of general relativity, we can trace the origin of the universe backward in time to some sort of a beginning. However, before publishing his cosmological inferences, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a "fudge factor," to yield a static model for the universe. Einstein later considered this to be the greatest blunder of his scientific career.
Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a personal God.
Why such resistance to the idea of a definite beginning of the universe? It goes right back to that first argument, the cosmological argument: (a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause; (b) If the universe began to exist, then (c) the universe must have a cause. You can see the direction in which this argument is flowing--a direction of discomfort to some physicists.- Dr. Henry "Fritz" Schaefer III Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia.
It's a common misconception that Einstein beleived in God or that his 'fudge factor' was God.
Stephen Hawking has been cited often in support of the exsistance of God. But there's reason to beleive Stephen Hawking for example, is biased in his book A Brief History of Time Which talks about God quite a bit. His wife, Jane Hawking is a Christian. She made the statement in 1986, "Without my faith in God, I wouldn't have been able to live in this situation;" namely, the deteriorating health of her husband. "I would not have been able to marry Stephen in the first place because I wouldn't have had the optimism to carry me through and I wouldn't have been able to carry on with it."
Two of his best friends became feverent Fundamentalists for Billy Graham.
Some believe that evidence for the big bang is evidence for the existence of god. Who else, they ask, could have caused such a thing?
Here we go......
The evidence is in. There is now little doubt that our universe was brought into existence by a "big bang" that occurred some 15 billion years ago. The existence of such a creation event explains a number of phenomena including the expansion of the universe, the existence of the cosmic background radiation, and the relative proportions of various sorts of matter.
Dr. Theodore Schick Jr.So there you have it, it is pretty universally accepted. The question remains, is it proof of God?
Frederick Burnham, a science-historian said, "These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years."
At a press conference reporting the findings of the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite George Smoot said: "If you're religious, it's like looking at the face of god." Why? Because something must have caused the big bang, and who else but god could have done such a thing?"
Is that true?
The traditional first-cause argument rests on the assumption that everything has a cause. Noodles have a cause. Penguins have a cause. Even Fredhall has a cause. Since nothing can cause itself, and since the string of causes can't be infinitely long, there must be a first cause, namely, god.
Here we go, I wil shoot this argument down with the great shoulder-mounted missle launcher of logic:
1. Everything is caused by something other than itself, even Penguins.
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.Most of you can see where this is heading.
This argument is self-refuting. If everything has a cause other than itself, then god must have a cause other than himself. But if god has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false. POOF! Like Douglas Admas said (Thor rest his soul):
This passage is talking about the fictional Babel Fish, a fish that squirms into your ear and translates all language for you into your native tongue.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence than anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of thenon-existence of God. `The argument goes something like this: ``I refuse to prove that I exist,'' says God, ``for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'' ``But,'' says Man, ``The Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'' ``Oh dear,'' says God, ``I hadn't thought of that,'' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. ``Oh, that was easy,'' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Logic doesn't demand a first cause anymore than it demands a first number.
A universe created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being should be perfect. It si close to perfect, having FredHalls and Penguins in it and of course me. But the universe as we know it seems flawed. It certainly doesn't seem particularly hospitable to humans. Clarence Darrow explains:
Even a human being of very limited capacity could think of countless ways in which the earth could be improved as the home of man, and from the earliest time the race has been using all sorts of efforts and resources to make it more suitable for its abode. Admitting that the earth is a fit place for life, and certainly every place in the universe where life exists is fitted for life, then what sort of life was this planet designed to support? There are some millions of different species of animals on this earth, and one-half of these are insects. In numbers, and perhaps in other ways, man is in a great minority. If the land of the earth was made for life, it seems as if it was intended for insect life, which can exist almost anywhere. If no other available place can be found they can live by the million on man, and inside of him. They generally succeed in destroying his life, and, if they have a chance, wind up by eating his body
If you use the argument that the earth was created for us, you will have some trouble proving this. Every place on Earth is subject to natural disasters, and there are many places where humans cannot live, like within 30 feet of my laundry pile. Insects, on the other hand, seem to thrive most everywhere.
When biologist G. B. S. Haldane was asked what his study of living things revealed about god, he said, "An inordinate fondness for beetles." If the Earth was created for us (as many christians beleive), it certainly leaves something to be desired.
Ok, so let's ammend the first string of arguments for God and re-word it like this:
6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god, because he is not bound by time.
10. Therefore, god exists.This is a little trickier because it is not self-defeating like the first one.
Well, for starters number 7 conflicts with relativity theory because the general theory of relativity claims that there was no time before there was a universe. Time and the universe are coterminous (word of the day on my word of the day calender) -they came into existence together. This is a finding of Einstein.
Things can happen without a cause. Take sub-atomic particles, please. (bbig laugh from audience) Quantum Theory states that
quantum electrodynamics reveals that an electron, positron, and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously in a perfect vacuum. When this happens, the three particles exist for a brief time, and then annihilate each other, leaving no trace behind.
So maybe Big Bangs can just spontaniously happen. Or maybe this big bang is the result of a previous universe. Maybe the Universe has been big bangin and big crunchin for a gazillion billion years and in its 300 trillionth time it finally succeeded in creating self-aware life and penguins.
It has long been known that if the amount of matter in the universe is great enough, then the universe will someday stop expanding and start contracting. Eventually, all the matter in the universe will be drawn back to a single point in what has come to be known as "the big crunch." Since matter supposedly cannot be crushed out of existence, the contraction cannot go on indefinitely. At some point the compressed matter may rebound in another big bang. If so, the big bang would have been caused by a prior state of the universe rather than some external agency.
We can't rule out the possibility that a natural explanation will be found, no matter how incredible the event. ( A squirrel may walk up to you one day and suddenly spill the nuts so to speak and tell you everything) When faced with an inexplicable event, like a talking squirrel, it is always more rational to look for a natural cause than to attribute it to something supernatural. Appealing to the supernatural does not increase our understanding. It simply masks the fact that we do not yet understand.
All in all, we need to remember human being's presense on Earth is a sliver on top of a 300 mile deep history of previous life forms that lived for millions of years, then went extinct and gave room for newer life.
I personally think humans as a species think way too much of themselves.
-Dan
-
julien
The big bang singularity included everything that later became matter *and* spacetime. At the singularity space and time were meaningless.
You can't really speculate about where it came "from" because we have no information about anything outside of our universe. Nor can you wonder what came 'before' it, as from our standpoint there was no before.This is not a case of a universe of empty space with a tiny point of infinite energy in the center waiting to explode. The big bang was an expansion of space and time and matter. You can wonder if something outside of the universe created the singularity, although 'outside' is not really a meaningful concept here, the universe doesn't have inside and outside.
And yes ballistic there are scientists who are toying with the idea of 'virtual bubble universes' that can appear spontaneously.
-
Hojon
Could you be more specific and cite some credible source references for this statement.
I don't have a source that says "Causes are the realm of philosophy" so no, I don't have one. It's pretty much the definition of science. What or who caused the big bang, at least at this point in time, is beyond our scope. When I say Cause I'm referring to the Why, not the How. How is science, Why is philosophy.
There are theories galore about what started off the Big Bang, unfortunately (at this point in time) we can't test them so they are the realm of philosophy right now. Perhaps later that will not be true.
Interesting lab recreation. Again, would you be more specific and cite some credible source references for this statement.
CERN and Fermilab* do this routinely, as do other accelerators I can't think of at the moment. Most of the bigger accelerators are capable of this sort of thing. The energies (temperature) of the universe at that age is something like 4 TeV, which is attainable in the more powerfull accelerators. I can double check that number, but I'm pretty sure that's close.
Theoretically, all matter in the universe is believed to be condensed at one time into a single mass with no space, such that light cannot escape. The mass so great that it is reduced to a point of singularity. Then, for reasons unknown, that is, no one has yet devised a good theory (at least not to my satisfaction) as to why the super-dense mass exploded and expanded into the universe we have today
One important point to keep in mind, it wasn't mass or light that expanded or had to escape this starting point, it was space itself. Space expaned very quickly at that point (faster than light) until it was diffuse enough for atoms to form. At those early energies (or, to look at it another way, masses), gravity is the dominant force. Unfortunately we don't have a quantum theory of gravity so it is hard to understand the exact mechanics of what happened.
The "Cause" that Hojon must be referring to, from a philosophical perspective, is whether this would be by God or some other unknown higher power. - Amazing
Yes, that's generally why this question gets asked in the first place. At least that's been my experience online. I assumed that was the intent of the question.
*The God Particle is an excellent book that covers this topic in part. Neko quoted from it, it has quite a bit of information that I'm talkin about here. Leon Lederman was the director of Fermilab for about 10 years. My 10^-30 comes from that book, though you can find it other places too.