Do you believe in the Big-Bang theory?

[The Dancing Peacock]

yea. It's the best explanation science has right now, so I'm gonna go with that. They can describe up to a nano-second after the big-bang, but they can't describe the infinitely small, infinitely dense object from whence everything exploded. Sure as hell don't believe in creation. Jury is still out for me if there was someone to light the fuse or not.



late.


TDP

 

[cxim]

<> They can describe up to a nano-second after the big-bang, <>

That's a new one on me... No one in existance can describe anything a thousand yrs ago with any accuracy much less the universe close to the 'Big Bang'... other than by saying 'it was a lot smaller then'. Funny how misperceptions go.

The BB theory sort-of-seems to fit measurements now.

Then atoms contain the blueprints ??? Wonders will never cease..

 

[KevinH]

&quot;how...such a large explosion could create order in the universe&quot;...

That's absurd. Take any basic course and you'd realize the universe is becoming more and more chaotic (*cough* entropy). Just because what you see in your world appears &quot;normal&quot; to you doesn't mean that is the proper order of things! Better yet:

1. Prior to big bang - The possibility of a single mass.
2. After big bang - The possibility of Chaos (relative to how it was before).

I'm not saying the big bang is THE definitive answer but your little analogy was way off (as was that little tornado bit). The idea behind your analogy makes sense, it's just that for it to hold even the slightest relavence, we'd have to conclude that our current state is more ordered then the state before the big bang. Fact of the matter is, we can't conclude anything about the state of the universe before the big bang. However, with evidence and studies, THEORIES can be formed.

 

[Napalm381]

cxim- Scientists have formed theories on the time immediately following the big bang based, aomng other things, on supercollider experiments. Colliding particles at extremely high speeds creates environments that mirror those of what the time period immediately follwoing the big bang. A quick search on Yahoo or similar will provide many web pages explaining this further if you wish to pursue it.

 

[smp]

I'm in on the big bang.. and rubber band analogy.. if we're expanding now.. then we reach a point where the energy created by the big bang kind of runs out.. and we stop, where the pressure from the 'anti universe' or 'anti matter' outside our universe pushes us back in.. untill we compress back to a single point where the pressure creates another big bang.. or something like that..
However.. Zen teaches us that the universe is within us.. so therefore, this thread is meaningless..

or in other words.. my old man's words.. contemplating the origins of the universe is like my bird contemplating the size of the earth (I have this really stupid budgie at home)... instead of asking questions of the universe.. we should ask questions of the spirit.. what is the sound of one hand clapping? heh heh.. I know I know.. been done.. but still relevant.
Also.. if we can find enlightenment within ourselves.. if we can become one with the Tao.. then these types of questions don't matter..

 

[palad]

of course I believe in the big bang... God said 'Let it be' and

BANG!!!

there it was!

 

[Mears]

Ok, even if there was some way for non-living matter to create life, what makes you think that it would create something that would have the built in ability to reproduce. Then there is the whole problem I have with a single very simple organism evolving to all the diverse, complex creatures on this planet.

 

[cxim]

Napalm, you misunderstand... no one knows what the enviornment was 'then' or even if there was a 'was' then... Theories do not prove anything...

Particle experiments do not prove the BB theory, any more than the sun rising in the east &amp; setting in the west proves that the earth is flat.

Buy some rocks from me. They make good pets !!

 

[Rio Rebel]

I didn't believe it at first, because I couldn't understand it. But then I talked to some members of the scientific community one night, and I surrendered to it. I gave my life to the Big Bang theory.

Now it still doesn't make sense, but sometimes I just feel a calm presence from it, like I'm safe and it cares about me. Sometimes it just gives me peace, and sometimes it seems to give me a clear direction - like which branch of physics I want to major in, or whether to be a part of the physics honor fraternity or the astronomy honor fraternity...but mostly I just get the urge to give money to the national science foundation.

It may sound silly to you guys, but one day the Great Bang will return, and then where will you be?

(this parody is dedicated to Unnecessary God (UG), to prove that I *can* laugh at myself...)

 

[Thom]

<< here's another one. If a tornado passed through a junkyard countless times would it eventually create a 747 >>



YES

if all the parts of a were there and you considered that a tornado intrinsically could build a 747.

what do i mean?

what are you made of? bones, skin, flesh. what are these made of? molecules. what are these made of? atoms. what are these made of? protons, neutrons, electrons. what are these made of? quarks. etc, all matter, all created since a 'big bang' but IN SEQUENCE. ie you could not have molecules before you have atoms, makes no sense.

what do we know about linking matter and energy? e=mcc

so what? well, if you exist then clearly energy intrinsically could have allowed you to be made.

does this prove the big bang? does it bollocks, but i am trying to say that from energy to people, an evolution of complexity has developed. yes, it is incredible that we exist, but i believe you can trace it back all the way to the big bang.

 

[Thom]

rio he hasn't even posted in here yet

 

[Wuming]

hmm.. i think its very much the only plausible scientific explanation for the creation of the universe.

 

[Napalm381]

We don't directly* know what the environment was back then. But for some strange reason the empirical evidence from observing the universe (background radiation being the first to come to mind), the theories of particle physics, and the experimental evidence from supercolliders and the like all agree with each other. If you think that theories that agree with both empirical and experimental evidence are still worthless, feel free to maintain your ignorance.

 

[erikiksaz]

sure i do. i'd say there's more evidence in the &quot;big bang&quot; theory than what the other world-wide religions have to offer.

 

[Pyxis]

Yes

 

[thEnEuRoMancER]

But for some strange reason the empirical evidence from observing the universe (background radiation being the first to come to mind), the theories of particle physics, and the experimental evidence from supercolliders and the like all agree with each other.

The problem by experimental proving of these teories is in enormous funds, needed for building, powering and maintaining the supercolliders. Furthermore, in order to simulate the course of action in first seconds after the BB one would have to build a supercollider the size of our Solar system.

 

[Javelin]

Intersting thread...

First of all, the big ban theory is widely accepted in the scientific community and while no theory can ever be &quot;proven&quot;, the Kobe radiation results are very strong evidence in support of it.

Second, because we know that the universe is expanding, logically, we can infer that at some point in the past it must have been originated from a singluarity. I believe Hawking and Penrose proved that the big bang must have come from a singluarity.

Finally, the matter of causality(what caused the big bang) is really the wrong question to ask. Causality is really a function of time. And as time &quot;began&quot; with the big bang, one cannot speak of a cause. We currently have no framework for analyzing singluarities, so these questions are beyond answer at this point... perhaps one day they may not be.

 

[kami]

I totally believe in it..



<< How is it possible that such a large explosion could create order in the universe? If you put a pile of bricks, wood, and nails under dynamite and blow it up do you get house? I just don't think its possible. >>



Who says the universe is an orderly place??!! You couldn't ask for more chaos. The Earth and our solar system is just a fluke, and I have no doubt there are many many more flukes out there as well, but in general the Universe could be the perfect example of a non-orderly place.



<< here's another one. If a tornado passed through a junkyard countless times would it eventually create a 747 >>


it's probably a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance...but the point is, it should be possible.

anyone remember this question: Given an infinite amount of time, could a monkey randomly hitting a typewriter eventually type out the entire Bible from start to finish?
(it went something like that)

the answer is YES. It's an infinite amount of time so that monkey would probably EVENTUALLY (in spans of time we can't even fathom) type out every single book out there.

 

[thEnEuRoMancER]

<< here's another one. If a tornado passed through a junkyard countless times would it eventually create a 747 >>

Let's not forget the laws of thermodynamics here. The entropy (disorder) of each system is inevitably increasing in time. Locally it can be reduced (e.g. a 747 is created from junk), but this means disorder will be created somewhere else.

 

[Thom]

<< And as time &quot;began&quot; with the big bang >>



i disagree. time is simply a coefficient. it is a arbitrary value which we create. time, even if immeasurable, is always continuing. the first order differential of time is a constant.

just because you cannot see a clock, does not mean that time is not passing.

and so i beleive that 'time' has always been and always will, frankly, i think there may have been several big bangs and several big crunches. imagine if we found a lifeform evolved enough to have avoided being 'crunched' last time around...

 

[Thom]

would you consider a singularity to have zero entropy?

 

[Thom]

would you consider a singularity to have zero entropy?

 

[thEnEuRoMancER]

According to the theory of relativity space and time are tied into a continuum and cannot exist without one another. If, for example, you are travelling on a trein that's running at the speed of light, for you the time freezes (=stops) because light, carrying the information about the happening in environment, will never be able to catch up with you.
In a singular point time and space cease to exist. For a human this is unimaginable (in terms of human feelings). But that's no problem for us because the existance of a singular space-time and the existance of a human observer cancel out each other anyway

 

[Javelin]

<< i disagree. time is simply a coefficient. it is a arbitrary value which we create. time, even if immeasurable, is always continuing. the first order differential of time is a constant. >>



This is acutally completely false. Time is not constant. Einstein showed through special relativity that time passes differently at different velocities, and thru general rel. that space and time are actually the same thing. Time does not flow in a black hole, and similarly it did not exist at the big bang singularity.

 

[NaughtyusMaximus]

Yes.