Big Bang theory

sitbooboo · Feb 25, 2007

- i was born through my mother - she was born through climate changes on earth - earth was born through the gases of our solar system - our solor sytem was born through gases from the universe - our universe was born from a big bang - the big bang was born from compressed gas. - that gas was born from a pin sized thing??? - it's all a micro black hole to me at this stage - how is it possible that something is born from nothing?

doubletruncation · Feb 25, 2007

Welcome to SDC! I think the big bang represents the limit of our knowledge. We simply don't know if there was something before the big bang, or if "before the big bang" means anything at all. What we do know is that there is a 2.7 K blackbody radiation coming from all directions in space, that at large scales the universe seems to be ripping apart (with a very specific relation between the rate at which it's ripping apart and how far away things are), that the baryons in the universe seem to be 74% hydrogen and 26% helium, that matter is clumped together in a particular fashion that also seems to change as you look farther away, that the types of galaxies that you see seem to change as you look farther away etc. These many different observations appear to imply that 13.7 billion years ago the universe was a very hot, very dense place in which all of the matter would have been stripped into quarks (and perhaps something even more exotic before that) - though it's always possible that future observations may point toward a different explanation. (I don't expect it to be very clear from this *how* all those observations point to that theory, you really should do some research on cosmology if you don't know and you'd like to find out as it's a fairly complicated story). Granted this may not seem philosophically satisfying - frankly I don't think it matters, it's what we observe and ultimately that trumps whatever stories we might have concoted in our minds before making the observations. I'm guessing that you may prefer a religious answer to the question of where the big bang came from. Sure you can posit a concious spirit that decided to make the universe, but I think it's fair game to ask then where the spirit came from if we must necessarily ask where the big bang came from. You can say "the spirit is eternal, that's what it means to be God - that which does not need to be created", I don't see why that's so different from saying that there <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

sitbooboo · Feb 25, 2007

- i don't disagree that the blackbody radiation is expanding..as all things must expand (go up) must come down. - recent discoveries have proving that not all planets exist on our formula. - 13.7 billion years ago the universe was a very hot, very dense place in which all of the matter would have been stripped into quarks. - where did the quacks come from? - last time I was in church the leafs won the cup - the point is the big bang theory only makes sense if the matter that expanded came from another dimension say we are a universe born from a blackhole? - if every solar system has a black hole than it is only natural that the universe has a blackhole. - I guess what I mean is a blackhole caused our big bang!

search · Feb 25, 2007

It is not possible at this stage to understand the Before the Big. It is just not technically possible to recriate such conditions therefore only a few people (brilliant minds and wackos) dare trying to explain that and they use either daunting mathematical or thought processes (the wackos just babel a bit like me right now <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />). Just think about the temperatures, presssure required to achieve the Big Bang conditions and then you will understand why we are not prepared for that yet. The most powerfull particle accelerator and collider, the LHC (Large Hadron Accelerator) in CERN Swizerland will be ready by the end of this year and it will be able to achieve 7TeV (meaning collisions in the orde of 14Tev). Then maybe some questions may be answered but I am almost sure that more questions will come up. Your question is far from our present understanding.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

why06 · Feb 25, 2007

Exactly nobody and I mean NObody knows what the universe was like before the time of the bigbang. You cant say it was a singularity because we would be inside. The universe is infinite and finite. And to be honest inside a singularity all laws and phyiscs break down. it is impossible to determine the infinite. This question is beyond our understandind. The best person you could ask is Steven Hawking, and he could only guess... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

alkalin · Feb 25, 2007

I think it may help to envision the space of all reality as many layers of energy, that other layers as ours exist, and contain intelligence. That intelligence decided to birth the material universe, our level of energy, so now we exist. But still the question remains, who or what birthed the intelligences in other energy levels? This question is one that has no answer for us, and maybe never will. It is after all a metaphysical question, and not science. The big tweak is what we dabble in when trying to explain the big bang. What happens when fundamental theories are wrong yet are constantly pursued trying to make them real? If there is real data that is misinterpreted, then we are on the wrong path. Considering the complexity of the universe, that should be no surprise. One fundamental flaw is that somehow, some way the complexities we observe can be put into one simple formula or two, and Walla, the math is now our God, so to speak.

R1 · Feb 25, 2007

I think the big bang represents the limit of our knowledge. We simply don't know if there was something before the big bang, or if "before the big bang" means anything at all doubletruncation, I agree with that, but also there must have been no time except a little bit when all matter was closer together. There was a beginning to time around that time. 'Never' is what is outside of time, outside the universe, so there's no sense in asking about what never happened. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Feb 25, 2007

BB is a fictionalised model for creation invented by a priest. it did not happen, nor did anything similar happen. outer space is not expanding or stretching nor accelerating.

doubletruncation · Feb 25, 2007

recent discoveries have proving that not all planets exist on our formula. It's true, I'd be willing to bet a dollar that as we make more observations the big bang will continue to be in agreement with them, but I wouldn't be willing to bet much more than that. where did the quacks come from? As discussed by others on this thread, people have various ideas, but we really don't know. All we can say with some degree of confidence backed by observations is that at one point the universe may have been a very hot dense quark soup. last time I was in church the leafs won the cup Sorry, in my experience this question is usually asked as a prelude to proving why god must obviously exist. It really is a very good question though, to which the answer is simply "we don't know." - the point is the big bang theory only makes sense if the matter that expanded came from another dimension say we are a universe born from a blackhole? - if every solar system has a black hole than it is only natural that the universe has a blackhole. - I guess what I mean is a blackhole caused our big bang! It's possible, and there are people who have attempted to put such a theory on a firm mathematical footing. As far as I know though, it's speculation at this point. It could also be that the universe is cyclic (eventually something that we don't know about presently causes it to collapse again and reexpand, so that it continues forever), or that we are actually living in someone else's computer simulation (I'm not a big fan of this one personally since it's unclear that you could simulate the universe on a computer that was less complicated than the universe itself, though amusingly this is somewhat like god albeit in a fashion that reglions don't usually conside <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Feb 25, 2007

where did the quacks come from? QUACKS come from ducks, of course <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> QUARKS come from elsewhere. As for what caused the big bang, there is a possible answer in M-theory, an outgrowth of string theory. It postulates 11 dimensions populated by branes (a sort of multidimensional "membrane"), which when they collide can start a new universe from that energy. Eventually some of the new universes energy condenses into matter due to quantum fluctuations and here we are. It's a controversial theory in that for a long time it was thought untestable, but it solves many problems including the relative weakness of gravity vs. the other fundamental forces. It also extends time back before the big bang. Things could be settled soon as recently ways may have been devised to test string theory, and by extension M-theory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpeedFreek · Feb 25, 2007

M-theory may help us understand more about the universe if turns out to be testable, but we will end up asking the same question in the end - where did the multidimensional membranes come from? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

R1 · Feb 25, 2007

maybe the math people will keep working on it and answer that later, speedfreek. Hopefully we can at least make use of the other dimensions, there is so much potential. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

trumptor · Feb 26, 2007

"It's fairly clear that our conciousness is the result of a complex jumble of cells known as the brain - when you damage that, you fundamentally damage various properties of a person's self. When you cut it in half, as is sometimes done to treat people with severe epilepsy, you get two indepedent "concious people". If you damage it too much you terminate a person's conciousness altogether. It's unclear how you get conciousness without a brain (and frankly I don't think we need to make the magical assumptions of souls that were popular before the detailed observations and investigation of brains were made to understand any aspect of conciousness or life)" I would like to know how civility factors into a theory such as this. I typically do not champion a religious agenda at all. I've never seen a higher power, and my bible or someone elses torah or koran may be all just peoples stories multiplied and exaggerated or maybe not, I don't know. I would like to know though, if our thinking is just an evolutionary answer to a computer, where our thoughts and feelings are just the results of evolutionary processes, then how come you are conscious of the body that you are in? How would I know I exist? Close your eyes and think, how come you can't will your conscience onto another body, and why were you born in the one you have? Another question is morality. Is morality then just a type of thought generated through evolution to better the chances of survival of the species? Then would that not mean that killing a baby, raping somebody, or any other incomprehensible act really does not mean anything? If we are just a product of our environment and our thoughts are completely chosen by our chemical makeup then does it matter to even try to think? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ______________Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about. </div>

SpeedFreek · Feb 26, 2007

In my view, consciousness and morality are both a side-effect of evolution, based on problem solving. Hypothetically, consciousness may start in a very small way when an animal starts reasoning rather than acting on instinct. It can be considered conscious whenever it is thinking, rather than just reacting. Imagine early primates using primitive tools (like we see bonobo apes or chimpanzees using probes for termite mounds or other tools). Some anthropologists suggest that an animal may be ever so slightly conscious of itself for the duration it uses a tool. Most of the time the animal is just acting on instinct, but it has a moment of a dim glimmer of consciousness whilst using tools, learning from other animals how to use tools, and maybe, one day it accidently breaks or damages the tool in a way that actually works better. If it realises this, improves the tool, it has another glimmer of consciousness. The animal started thinking, sporadically, in a very limited way. Then there is the idea of thinking of other animals in a way that allows you to predict their behaviour, rather than simply reacting to each other on instinct. This is when hunting becomes easier, if you can predict the actions of prey rather than just chase it. Or the idea of cooperating with fellow animals in order to get food. Maybe, at all these times, the animals think on a basic level. But the rest of the time they are not thinking, just reacting by instinct. There may have come a time then, when early humanoids living in a pack, or tribe, may start thinking about the other humanoids, in order to gain an advantage either through bettering them somehow, or using them to help in a mutual way. And all the time, the little conscious snippets of consciousness, of reasoning, of thinking about others, were getting bigger and closer together. This gave them such a tremendous advantage for getting food and dealing with their <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

R1 · Feb 26, 2007

well I think it does matter to even try to think. I guess consciousness might be seen as the product of the environment, but the local environment is the universe. Not that consiousness is so much of a product or a byproduct or waste product, but consciousness is part of what happens to the universe, it just so happens that it happens here on this planet and I guess I can easily get spoiled But what do you mean by evolutionary answer to a computer?/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

trumptor · Feb 27, 2007

What I meant by comparing us to computers is that what I am gathering is that all of our thoughts, morals, feelings, etc are just electrical impulses within our brains created through evolution. This would make us no different than a very sophisticated computer with artificial intelligence. As was just said, even our morals can be reasoned out to come from the advantages it creates in a survival of the fittest world. I believe this is where racism and the feelings behind nationalism come from as well. In a world where you want your seed to survive, it helps to try and create advantages to your own kind, or detriment to those unlike yourself if they are competitors. But, how then does it explain that we can reason out racism to be bad? Or that we can look at a duck with its chicks waddling across the road and slam on our brakes hard enough to risk getting into a wreck just to avoid killing the chicks? If all we consider to be right and wrong can be traced back to being the best view to have to ensure the survival of our genetic line, then right and wrong don't exist as concrete things. The conscience inside that tells us it is wrong to run over the old granny in the street is no more than a sophisticated program in our heads developed through evolution. And it has no more meaning than a computer program telling a computer to lock up after 3 minutes on idle. Its hard to imagine right and wrong as subjective ideas developed as a survival strategy for our species. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ______________Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about. </div>

doubletruncation · Feb 27, 2007

I would like to know though, if our thinking is just an evolutionary answer to a computer, where our thoughts and feelings are just the results of evolutionary processes, then how come you are conscious of the body that you are in? This is a very interesting question - why do we have a subjective notion of self? Ultimately I think it has to be connected to some selective advantage for our ensemble of genes. I agree with speedfreek's post that this is likely related to the development of a brain that can reason. In particular, having a unified sense of person may be a clever way for the brain to organize its picture of the world and plan and implement actions. How would I know I exist? It depends on what you mean by "I" - if you mean some ethereal substance divorced from the body that is somehow still tangible (i.e. a soul), then I think there isn't a good reason to think that exists. If you mean, how are you sure that your thoughts, feelings, experiences, decisions, etc (everything that goes into your sense of person) exists - well I think you can know they exist because you would still have those sensations even if you thought they didn't exist. Granted this view may not -feel- right in some sense, but I think we have to think about what it means for something to "feel right." When an idea "feels right" your brain is doing something, something that isn't just pure rational logic. Whatever the brain is doing (perhaps empathizing with the idea, or evaluating it emotionally), it's following some form of circuitry. And it could well be that that circuitry can't cope with a materialistic view of itself (e.g. it's hard to empathize with a computer). The same could be said for the circuits that run our rational logic (they may also have some built in limits), here though our experiences seem to be more objectively reliable (you can do some math, predict a result and <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

search · Feb 27, 2007

The "Big Bang Theory" thread is becaming the "Badabing Badabang Theory" thread...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

aleksej12 · Feb 5, 2009

Ever since 1983 I have been sending my theory about the origin of Space to every possible address and to this day I have received no reply. It was a long time ago that even Einstein claimed that the Big Bang theory sounded more like a religion than science. Several years ago mr. Hawking bashfully announced that the Big Bang theory needed reexamination. Can you imagine this great man, who is as helpless as a child, being tyrannized, abused and scared by a group of parasites gathered around him, and who have made their careers on account of his brains. Can you now imagine how it would seem to this world - and to their pockets - if the theory proved to be nothing but nonsense. Therefore I would like to remind you of my theory, that says that galaxies that have been created in Space shall continue to be created eternally, and the stupid theory about the age of Space of 14.5 billion years means nothing because Space is timeless and spaceless. Time and space exists only in the material Space, i.e. galaxies. Here I would also like to remind you of the Australian physicist Brown who discovered about 20 gaseous galaxies. Beside the gaseous galaxies that he did find there are gaseous galaxies that he could not see from the sheer reason that in those galaxies there was not enough condensation and core rotation, when due to mighty rotation the core starts to eject matter into Space, because all the matter starts to collide, which leads to combustion and creation of stars. So the Orto’s cloud and the cloud “Horse Head” are not the cradles of stars but the cemetery of stars, where due to the peripheral collisions of Andromeda and the Milky Way there comes to mass collisions of old stars formed from the center of the galaxy long time ago. Life in Space should not be sought elsewhere except in the vicinity of dual galaxies, where due to the collisions in nebulas and clouds the solid matter is finally being produced from the gaseous matter and in explosions it flies into space like shrapnels which are then captured by a hydrogen ball, like our Sun. We need to accept the fact that Jupiter, Saturn and Uranium are not part of the classical categorization of the planets of the Solar System. Regarding the details of what Voyager and Hubble took, as well as the renowned new Geneva theory, where gold core was bombed in a cyclotron and gave them pre-soup deriving from the Big Bang. I believe that for the first time in history they have managed to find intertwined gravitons, as I presented the gravitons in 1983 as short separated threads that under special circumstances bend into V-shape. Then the gravitons started to interconnect and to create the first hydrogen atom. Just see the photo of the pre-soup and imagine the pressure necessary to straighten and disentangle those threads in order to get gravitons again, i.e. for the matter no longer to exist. And that is the reason why the Black hole does not emit any light, because the matter has turned into its original shape, i.e. gravitons. I am prepared to stand before ajury of true scientists (by that I do not mean those people who just waive their degrees, but have also made some useful contributions to the science) and give a detailed explanation and defend my theory about the origin of Space. I am asking all of those who are using their own heads for just a little bit, and who have obviously until now been under the influence of those who had an explosion of a pea-sized atom in their heads, to contact me. I thank you in advance. Best regards; Branko Lesinger Mobile phone no. +385 91 764 3905

Big Bang theory

sitbooboo

Guest

doubletruncation

Guest

sitbooboo

Guest

search

Guest

why06

Guest

alkalin

Guest

R1

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

doubletruncation

Guest

docm

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

R1

Guest

trumptor

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

R1

Guest

trumptor

Guest

doubletruncation

Guest

search

Guest

aleksej12

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page