Believe in the Big Bang?

In the scientific community, it is a commonly accepted belief that Energy can neither be created or destroyed; how can anyone believeing this, also believe in the Big Bang Theory?

The most elementary science teaches us that something cannot be created from nothing. So how does the Big Bang Theory hold any weight in the scientific community?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you gotta explain the unexplainable with something...heres an anology...you are cooking an apple pie...you take out the baked apple pie from the heater...and notice a hole on one side of a pie, the hole came from a bubble of carbon dioxide gas u presume, and cover it up with a strawberry to hide the hole...same thing with universe...humans cant describe something, they cover it up with what they assume, so that later they can prove that assumption wrong

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know this isn't a philosophical board, but philosophically that is absurd. Many people who believe in the Big Bang Theory have closed themselves off to any other solution; when, as scientists, they should be exploring EVERY possibility.

But hey, I guess that's why I'm no scientist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Imagine...you are living in 1850's and are emerged in the 1850's world...and someone tells you the importance of a computer in an everyday life in future of every human...wouldnt u think that is absurd? to think that computer is so important today...which it is today...because we rely on computers in basically every aspect of our life...especially technology

 

I understand what you are saying, but when someone turns an idea into a belief it becomes a lot more dangerous. Look at the state of our world today...look at how many people die everyday simply because of their beliefs.

 

you got to have beliefs...neither of the extremeties are beneficial to the society. that is having no beliefs, or dying for a belief...A perfect human must be somewhere in between...With a belief, but not to the extreme...

 

Yeah exactly. I'm not trying to disregard beliefs altogether, but when you close your mind off to all other possibilities, that is when you are taking it to the extreme.

 

you are wrong...by believing in something and trying to prove it wrong you are actually trying to open yourself to other possibilities.

 

That is pretty single-minded. Because when you close your mind off to all other possibilities but one, you are in essence denying all other possiblities...which is the definition of being close-minded. When any religious person closes themselves off to all other beliefs, they have become an extremist. Yet you say this is wrong?

Oh, and you are taking portions of my statements out of context now. Again, I'm talking about closing your mind off to other beliefs. Please read my statements more carefully.

 

The Big Bang Theory is indeed possible, even with the fact that energy can not be created or destroyed. However do not think that energy can't be created or destroyed in a typical sence. Energy can be transfered or transformed, into matter. (E=mc2) Anyway, the Big Bang is thought to be started by "quantum foam." This is stuff we have no physics for, all laws break down here. Unless you are an advanced astrophysicist, you have a good chance of not understanding it, if I can find a way to explain quantum foam to you, I will post it later

 

Your qualm with the big bang is not technically a problem. If the universe began with the big bang, and the big bang started with lots and lots of energy, then we aren't really creating energy out of nothingness, because there was no universe before it. The energy has always existed, since there is no such thing as "before the big bang". Still, I see how that sort of reasoning could leave you feeiling uneasy... so here's my other justification:

The Big Bang theory holds weight because it does a good job of explaining most of the observations we have made of the universe. The universe is expanding: play it in reverse and it seems that it all had to originate small and dense. The theory isn't perfect though. Cosmologists had to invoke inflation to explain why the background radiation on opposite sides of the sky is almost identical. And we're still trying to figure out what the deal is with the acceleration of expansion.

A theory is not an all encompassing explanation. For example, there are several theories that explain atomic nuclei. The liquid drop model, the fermi gas model, and the shell model. Each of these explain a certain set of observations but not all of them. Each treats the nucleus in a very different way. But each is very good at explaining what it is meant to explain so we keep using them until some better model comes along.

Same idea with the big bang. No model can explain everything, so for now, the big bang has to start with the assumption that all matter/energy/space started at an infinitely dense point and expanded outward. There are some scientists who believe the big bang is the correct model of our universe, and they are probably the majority. But there are other scientists that are working on coming up with other models. Some new theories like M-theory (closely related to string theory) think they might be able to explain the mysterious beginnings of our universe. But the drawback is that M-theory is not yet testable, so it remains on the border of science and math/philosophy.

I saw a recent outline of a theory that claims to explain the apparent expansion of the universe, black holes, dark matter and lots of other things, by making a slight modification to the time component of General Relativity. Who knows, maybe this new theory is right? I haven't seen it in any journals yet though... so time will tell.

 

OK, what we call physics is the study of matter. There are no 'laws', but merely descriptions of what we see matter doing. Matter and energy are interchangeable, but had to come from somewhere. But what is energy, if not positive and negative wave fluctuations, summing to zero over a complete number of cycles? A ripple, if you like.

So, the big bang did not create anything, it is merely a ripple in nothing. A ripple that gives us energy, that condensed into matter. It all still sums to zero.

 

Yes Words of Wisdom, as a philosophical type I try not to let any possiblity pass my attention; as such I am quite familiar with Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Theory (which many scientists claim is "science-fiction.") I am also familiar with the String Theory, which is related to Quantum Theory.

But now you are walking in a very VERY grey area. There are many that refer to Quantum Theory as the bridge between the Physical and Metaphysical. The further you walk towards Quantum Theory, the further you are walking away from Traditional Science.

And the second question of my first post has still gone unanswered, how do you get something from nothing? If this were possible, it would conflict with basic Universal Laws (as we understand them.)

Nova, you said, "The Big Bang theory holds weight because it does a good job of explaining most of the observations we have made of the universe."
As I'm sure you remember from history class, a long time ago it was a fact that the world was flat. All observations with their current technology led them to believe the world was flat. Do people really think that we are nearing the peak of technology? Einstein once said. "We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us." And with all my heart, I believe that.

So many think we are nearing the "Ultimate Truths"....and yet we haven't even discovered the Questions.

 

You know, space isn't nothing, and the last i read of M theory it seems quite possible that our spatiotemporal reality is descended from the fragmentation of higher dimensions; that our bubble is just one of many.

 

Hey theparadox, The BB theory was busted when acceleration in expansion of universe was detected, BBT was based on departing objects with respect to each other. But due to existence of acceleration, if U go back in time, the further U go in past the slower U should find the departure speed;

But I dont know if anyone has calculated the expansion speed of the begining by deaccelerating the speed with time.

 

So now we have to ask how did all that began.

So they all formed in yet another BB ?

 

The Hot Space cosmological model fits the facts, and we know that the BBT is incomplete, but that's how science works... until a better theory comes along which is testable and makes some predictions... Check WMAP's site or google [WMAP cosmology 101].

Hope this helps.

 

Maybe I was unclear. My argument was that our explanations are flawed, but are the best that we currently have. Take your example of the flat earth: It was a good model for the earth at the time. Look around and it certainly seems flat! But then you make more careful observations: watch a ship sail out to sea and it appears to sink below the horizon. Observe a lunar eclipse and notice that the shadow on the moon is round.

So, you make a theory based on what you know. Then, when new observations begin to contradict the theory, you come up with a better one, or modify the old one to fit. Right now many observations confirm the big bang (CMB, redshifted galaxies). But we have some observations that are harder to explain: Uniformity of the CMB, apparent acceleration of expansion.

You made the jump that, just because I said that the big bang explains things pretty well, science believes that it is the Final Answer. I meant nothing of the sort. I meant exactly what I said: the big bang does a good job of explaining some observations. Nobody in their right mind, with the amazing advances being made in science these days, believes that we are reaching a complete understanding of anything. We are simply finding better and better explanations.

I agree completely. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Quantum theory is hardly science fiction. It's just very strange. It has been rigorously tested and is used everywhere. The computer you're using right now relies on technology based on quantum theory. Many people are uncomfortable with it, but that has nothing to do with its validity as a theory.

Now string theory, that's more like science fiction at the moment, since it can't be tested.

 

Simple, what existed before the Big Bang was not nothing, but something, just very small and compact.