What caused the Big Bang?
|
The universe as we know it began at the point in time known as the Big Bang. The Big Bang Theory is supported through experimentation and widely accepted throughout the scientific world. Check out this primer video if you want to get up-to-speed. An Introduction to the Big Bang
Side: Big Bang
I would also go with Big Bang. As to the cause of the Big Bang, one leading contender is String Theory. One theoretical cause of the big bang presented using string theory postulates that the Big Bang was caused by the intersection of two branes. (At about 4 minutes, though the whole series is interesting in of itself) String theory's postulation.
Side: Big Bang
I don't think anyone can answer this question for sure, but here's my guess: I think the universe has simply always existed. As humans we perceive everything as having to come from something else -- a tree grows from an acorn, a sword comes from shaping molten metal. But we know from Physics and Chemistry that all that's really happening is matter and energy are changing forms. The amount of matter and energy that is here today is the same amount that has always been here. I suspect that the universe has been cyclically banging and crunching forever and will forever continue to do so. Side: Always existed
3
points
When we talk about the universe, we're talking about the universe "as it is now", and we know that this universe is 13.7 billion years old +- some millions of years. "The" universe hasn't always existed. Neither has "any" universe. We also know that the amount of matter and energy hasn't been constant for various reasons, including but not limited to the current combination of percentages of matter and energy and dark matter, and energy, which have changed over time since the planck epoch and the strong and weak forces acted on the elements and the the various syntheses began to act forming the various forms of matter (baryon synthesis etc.) that we see today. Side: Always existed
""The" universe hasn't always existed. Neither has "any" universe." That's an assumption. If you accept the theory of the big bang, all that's known is that at some point the universe existed in the state of a singularity (or something very close to being a singularity), which was followed by a bang and the rapid expansion of the universe. The state of our universe pre-bang (including whether it has existed forever as a singularity, grown and shrunk in a big bang/big crunch scenario, etc) is purely speculation. Side: Always existed
Ok, so let's assume that matter and energy are non-constant. It seems to me that there are still only two possibilities: 1) The universe has always existed in one form or another. 2) The initial stuff that became the universe was created somehow. Option 1 makes more sense to me. Side: Always existed
"...the current combination of percentages of matter and energy and dark matter, and energy... have changed over time ..." Are you sure about this? I'm having trouble verifying this statement. I did find this in the Wikipedia article on Baryogenesis: "the universe does not have equal amounts of matter and antimatter... There are two main interpretations for this disparity: either when the universe began there was already a small preference for matter... or, the universe was originally perfectly symmetric, but somehow a set of phenomena contributed to a small imbalance. The second point of view is preferred, although there is no clear experimental evidence indicating either of them to be the correct one." Side: Always existed
Exactly what I think! What's neat about that idea is that if it is true (which we cannot know) that would mean we have lived infinitely many times in the past and we will live infinitely more times in the future exactly the way we're living now. What will happen in 5 minutes from you reading this have happened infinitely many times already, and you have no idea. Also, you've already read this infinitely many times already, but still, you in the future have yet to read this. In between all of our infinite lives though, there are different lives that we live as many times, where we have made different decisions. Of coarse though, something like 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the times the universe has collapsed and expanded nothing as we know it exists the same way at all, I mean, the usual laws of physics and so on, but no same formations and events. Side: Always existed
2
points
Current thinking is on a Quantum Genesis theory (aka Quantum Cosmology) the issue therefore comes down to the foundations of quantum theory. Its has been said that if you think Quantum Theory is logical then you don't understand it. There many interpretations of Quantum Theory because of difficulty with its foundation. Clearly Quantum Theory needs to be rationalized one way or another. this undoubly will result in deeper understanding of reality itself. The daunting problem is that any mistake along the way complicate further discovery. Side: Always existed
The big bang theory is illogical. How could something spontaneously generate out of nothing? It is scientifically impossible. So far we have disproved the theory of spontaneous generation of anything, yet we say that is exactly what the big bang was! Or was the big bang more like a spontaneous combustion? i'm not really sure but still! we have disproved all things spontaneously generating and i think the only way that we can perceive the universe beginning is if it never really began nor will it ever end at the same time. all animate things must live and die, but how does that work out for the universe? are we destined to be sucked into the black hole that is supposed to be at the center of the milkey way? and if so, how are we sure that we aren't just part of someone else's toilet bowl that got flushed and in our view for it to finish flushing would take practically eternity! so my theory is that the universe has never began nor will it ever end because it has never existed to begin with. Side: Big Bang
All you've done with this argument is demonstrated your misunderstandings about the big bang. The big bang theory doesn't encapsulate the spontaneous generation of anything. The big bang theory simply states that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day. We make no assumptions about the initial condition; it could have been a singularity, it could have been a spontaneous generation, but at this point in time we simply don't know, as to postulate would simply be assumption based on no evidence. The big bang itself is backed by tons and tons of evidence; hubble's law, cosmic background radiation, nucleosynthesis, the large scale structure of the universe, etc, etc. I suggest you read up on it a bit more to understand exactly what it is saying. Side: Big Bang
"How could something spontaneously generate out of nothing?" Within our universe it's true that nothing can spontaneously generate. However our physical laws may not apply outside of our universe. Thus the universe itself could have been spontaneously generated by some external force we are incapable of understanding. Side: Big Bang
You are basing your argument on something that has no way of ever being proven right or wrong. Therefore it is an invalid point that could not be accepted as a valid statement as you have only stated that which may or may not be true in which we have no way of testing it. It is just like the theory of G-d or Jesus as a divine being. Side: Big Bang
1
point
1
point
THE BIG BANG THEORY: Theorizes that a large quantity of NOTHINGNESS decided to pack tightly together, ----and EXPLODE outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless ", so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons. According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode! This produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe. As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms. Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars. These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow describe it like this "In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 10 94 gm/cm2 and a temperature in exess of 10/39 degrees absolute. (That is a lot of heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness, especially when it is impossible for nothing to get hot). This theory stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense. Here are a number of scientific reasons why the BIG BANG THEORY is unworkable and fallacious. 1. Nothingness can not pack together 2. a Vacuum has no density 3. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness 4. How do you expand what isn't there. 5. Nothingness cannot produce heat 6. The anti-matter would have destroyed all the regular matter. Now lets look at the outward pushing particles 1. There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, tehy would keep getting farther apart. 2. Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. 3. The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. They could not get together and begin circling one another. 4. No way to change the direction of even one particle Now look at the gases (lets imagine the particles could get together) 1. Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated 2. Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together Look at "Push themselves into stars" 1. Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together 2. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars 3. There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently know expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars. 4. Gas clouds in outer space to not contract. We could go on and on. This information came from "The evolution handbook" by Vance Ferrell this book has over 3,000 facts which annihilate evolutionary theory Side: Big Bang
I agree with your statement about the possbility of their being no time (as, of course, time could quite possibly be a property of this universe along). However, I disagree with this statement slightly: "If there is no time, the most improbable event must happen - which was everything." Why must the most improbable happen? Surely it would make most sense to assume the most probable happened. And why is everything the most improbable thing that could happen? You may be right, it's just that you gave a bit of a sweeping statement there without explaining yourself or your reasoning. Side: Big Bang
0
points
|
