# The big bang is not logical

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Norsefire, Dec 13, 2007.

1. ### NorsefireSalam Shalom SalomRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
11,529
Why? If there was a big bang, where did the material and energy,etc and whatnot come from to form it? For the bang? And if they were there, where did THEY come from? And if there were other universes and dimensions, where did THEY come from? It's not logical, because it would suggest that everything has always been which is illogical in itself: you can't get something out of nothing.

3. ### blobranaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,214
Hum,
yeah, it could be that the nothing was in fact something.
It is just from our viewpoint of living in a Space-time that it seems that it came from nothing.

So now there is no problem.

5. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
30,859
Norsefire:

That pretty much squashes any argument you might make for a beginning to the universe, if it is true.

Note that you cannot argue something like "God created the universe out of nothing", because, as you said "You can't get something out of nothing".

7. ### RomanBannedBanned

Messages:
11,560
Well, you got something out of God....

Messages:
10,296
Not necessarily - it all depends on if you believe in the God of the Bible.

The reason I say that is because I saw one possible explanation that sounded pretty good. If God is all-powerful, all he had to do was expend a tremendous amount of energy in the command "Let there be light" and created equal amounts of matter and antimatter which was the Big Bang. We know that matter and anti-matter will destroy each other and leave nothing but pure energy AND that the reverse process should work as well. Ergo: "something from nothing."

9. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
The Big bang IS LOGICAL, ONLY IF, they have time reversed entities: White Holes. They COULD BE logical, if our universe is open, and have no time reversed qualities at all.

10. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
There is one slight snitch though... Hawking Radiation... it cannot exist. if the above is correct... I've just realized this.

11. ### kanedaActual CynicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,334
The big bang is nonsense from beginning to end. It is science's creationism where some clown thought up the idea based on a certain interpretation of a few facts (CMB, red shift) and everyone latched onto it. However as it is regularly shown to be wrong, like creationism ever more lunatic ideas are needed to keep it afloat.

12. ### kanedaActual CynicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,334
Reiku. You have a fairly steep slope lasting for 1,000 miles. About 3/4 of the way up, you place two balls next to each other. One rolls uphill and the other rolls downhill. That is how Hawking radiation works. Or rather, why it doesn't work.

Three decades or so ago, Taylor said that white holes were at the other end of black holes. If this was so, then there would be no msuper-massive black holes as they would all evaporate, via wormholes. The energy of a white hole has to come from somewhere and I can't see a viable source (since I don't believe in time as a dimension either, so it cannot be reversed).

13. ### superluminalI am MalcomRValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,876
You've posted no data to suggest that the Big Bang is as wrong as you suggest.

14. ### superluminalI am MalcomRValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,876
This is very incorrect, even in the highly simplified visualization of vacuum fluctuation particle-pair production near the event horizon.

In this visualization, a virtual particle pair is produced and one is "captured" by the hole and the other escapes on a different trajectory. There is no equivalent of your "uphill rolling ball" in this situation.

15. ### blobranaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,214
Just to remind folks, there isn't really a problem.
The big bang theory that most people on the street will be aware of is chaotic inflation model or similar variation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_inflation

This simply says that space and time and energy were created, before that is a meaningless statement. (ie think, hawkings book)

A refinement to this theory, to explain various observational and ,mathematical problems, lead to cyclic models or ekpyrotic models (think, lots of dimensions and M-theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

16. ### superluminalI am MalcomRValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,876
Nice, but I think the main players here will not be impressed with your links.

17. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
Those 'refinements' do not explain where the previous universes came from in the cyclic model, or the branes came from in the string theories. They are not explanations, but just move the origin back further.

18. ### superluminalI am MalcomRValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,876
Isn't the question of origins doomed to end pretty simply?

There seem to be only two possible scenarios:

1) An infinite regression of origins, or

2) An ultimate state of existence that simply always was.

Right? And if you don't like the "infinite regression" choice, you end up with the "always was" choice.

19. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
Correct, superluminal. Those who criticize the Big Bang model because it doesn't attempt to state what was before the big bang can give no better explanation, just move the question to a point farther back in time.

20. ### nietzschefanThread KillerValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,721
Is big bang/big crunch, Alpha/omega drama accepted at all?

The entire Universe turning end over end like an hourglass.

21. ### spidergoatValued Senior Member

Messages:
52,578
There was a big bang. We don't know where the material and energy came from. We don't know what was before, we don't know anything about the first few milliseconds. I would not say it's illogical, since the Big Bang Theory doesn't pretend to explain what you think it does, but it is a mystery.

22. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
The latest findings by WMAP and other experiments indicate our current universe will continue to expand. There does not seem to be nearly enough matter to halt the expansion, in fact the rate of expansion is increasing according to our best measurements. The current favored hypothesis is that our universe will end in either a heat death or a Big Rip. Is one of those scenarios a certainty? No, of course not, but cosmologist do base those scenarios on what the available evidence seems to indicate rather than the older speculation.

23. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,162
Hard to create a picture in a house of mirrors..... eh?

Everything that we know about the universe is purely evidence based on speculations. We don't know for certain any of these scenarios because everything is so far away that we don't have enough data to strongly support any claim. I find that the only subject that makes complete sense in terms of astronomy and astrophysics is stars and history of stars, and planets. Even then we run into problems. Everything else is just hypothesis. (Or you forgot the Big Bang is our null hypothesis?)