The big bang

[Dr. Zaus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I don't get it; what caused it and why doesn't it cause it now?

Edit:

Maybe a video will help?


Here's my problem:

A LOT of the stability in the universe is unexplained.

Here's my thought:
Since temporal causality can work to allow the big-bang to create itself at the start of all existence; can we have a non-universe space outside of the big-bang universe that is drawing the universe to a teleological end?

Not a vitalism, but some end-state that is outside of time that is impacting reality through transcendence of the temporal arrow of entropy?

 

[BoomerD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I don't get it; what caused it and why doesn't it cause it now?

Sorry...I had gas, and must have wandered too close to a source of ignition.

 

[Mike Gayner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I don't get it; what caused it and why doesn't it cause it now?

Read the article first, and the appropriate related articles. Otherwise you're just being a troll.

 

[Rastus]

If we knew for sure the answers you are asking for, we probably will have interstellar travel.

 

[BoomerD]

but...but...but what was here before there was a here?

If the universe didn't exist before the big bang...what went bang...and where did it happen?

 

[Cyco]

Everything only exists in your consciousnesses...
Everything only exists from a certain point of view...

Without the above, it might as well be that nothing exists.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Everything only exists in your consciousnesses...
Everything only exists from a certain point of view...

Without the above, it might as well be that nothing exists.

I'm hoping not... but that does tend to be the consensus.

Read the article first, and the appropriate related articles. Otherwise you're just being a troll.

Huh?

I didn't link it because I failed to read it.

What started the big-bang and why doesn't it start it now?

Is the outside of the edge of the big-bang a place outside of space-time just as pre big-bang was?

If reverse temporal causality could have the big-bang create itself (this is my understanding of the cause) why couldn't it cause itself again at the edge of our reality and then impede upon our universe?

If this did happen could we have over-lapping physicality that would have varying degrees of interaction with our existence?

Could there be teleological determinism driving the edge of the big-bang today; not a force of vitalism , but an end state drawing reality to itself: much in the same way pre-big-bang reality drew the big-bang into itself?


Like I said:

I don't get it; what caused it and why doesn't it cause it now?

ok: edited OP to include what I thought would be implicit details.

 

[santz]

you must have eaten sarah palin

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I don't get it; what caused it and why doesn't it cause it now?

Who says it's not happening now? There are physicists and other pocket-protector wearing types who theorize that big bangs happen all the time... that we are but one universe of many.

 

[Locut0s]

There are several different competing theories on this. However as none of them are yet testable this whole discussion wanders a bit off into philosophical territory. Most current theories that try to solve this question bring up some form of multiverse concept. The idea that our universe is just one of an infinite number of others. Many of these theories posit that new universes are indeed being created all the time outside of ours in the multiverse. These theories also solve the universes "fine tuned" problem.

BTW by philosophical here I don't mean just philosophy. These theories are backed by a lot of real math and are sound. They just aren't currently testable.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Math in brit-face is Maths.

I think you should just use American.

 

[Locut0s]

Math in brit-face is Maths.

I think you should just use American.

Wrong thread.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Wrong thread.

Or wrong universe?

 

[slayer202]

dixy, just go back and stay on your knees where you belong

 

[Dr. Zaus]

dixy, just go back and stay on your knees where you belong

Neigh, once i prove that gremlins live in things and make them work I'll have all the evince i need to burn to death you heathen "scientists!"

Honestly:

I'm trying to appropriate some answers to these questions that don't require vital-ism. Jesus is for not raping your neighbors donkey: not for understanding science. This is only a "god did it" argument if your faith in science is weak.

Mine is not.

 

[Locut0s]

Neigh, once i prove that gremlins live in things and make them work I'll have all the evince i need to burn to death you heathen "scientists!"

Honestly:

I'm trying to appropriate some answers to these questions that don't require vital-ism. Jesus is for not raping your neighbors donkey: not for understanding science. This is only a "god did it" argument if your faith in science is weak.

Mine is not.

It's true Spaceman DOES post under more than one account!

 

[Fritzo]

You're not the only one that doesn't get it. Nobody does. We may also never know because much of the information is beyond our observation. We can only run simulations and see which produces the closest result.

Brine theory has some issues, as does the cyclic universe and others. The Atacama Large Millimeter Array is about to go online (the world's largest ground based telescope system), and it expected to give us many more clues.

The problem is the early universe didn't have any light, and without light, there's nothing to see. We're only going to be able to see back until the point where there was some type of radiation being produced.

Another problem is the shape of the universe. If the universe expanded into a symmetrical shape (a dumbbell or a clover for instance), then we will only be able to deduce part of the picture -- the radiation from the other portion(s) of the universe will be heading away from us and never be able to be observed.

Right now we're in a stage of learning what we don't know, and this collection processes will likely take 100's, if not 1000's of years before we get concrete answers. That's why people like Copernicus, Planck, Bohr, Newton, and Einstein are so celebrated: their breakthroughs in universal laws are a rare and amazing feat.

 

[Wyndru]

I don't know

therefore....

 

[ThePresence]

There are several different competing theories on this. However as none of them are yet testable this whole discussion wanders a bit off into philosophical territory. Most current theories that try to solve this question bring up some form of multiverse concept. The idea that our universe is just one of an infinite number of others. Many of these theories posit that new universes are indeed being created all the time outside of ours in the multiverse. These theories also solve the universes "fine tuned" problem.

BTW by philosophical here I don't mean just philosophy. These theories are backed by a lot of real math and are sound. They just aren't currently testable.

You're going off into quantum theory and are not really directly answering the OP with traditional physics.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Doesn't the state of energy and matter determine the value that you give to maximum possible entropy? I mean, it isn't really the maximum possible entropy if energy and matter are incapable of conforming to it.

 

[Beev]

I would be more curious to know what "cycle" we're on now. How many big bangs and other universes have there been? What caused them? What caused their end?

/fascinated

 

[Paul98]

I'm hoping not... but that does tend to be the consensus.



Huh?

I didn't link it because I failed to read it.

What started the big-bang and why doesn't it start it now?

Is the outside of the edge of the big-bang a place outside of space-time just as pre big-bang was?

If reverse temporal causality could have the big-bang create itself (this is my understanding of the cause) why couldn't it cause itself again at the edge of our reality and then impede upon our universe?

If this did happen could we have over-lapping physicality that would have varying degrees of interaction with our existence?

Could there be teleological determinism driving the edge of the big-bang today; not a force of vitalism , but an end state drawing reality to itself: much in the same way pre-big-bang reality drew the big-bang into itself?


Like I said:

I don't get it; what caused it and why doesn't it cause it now?

ok: edited OP to include what I thought would be implicit details.

Why don't you read up on the actual science behind big bang? This is not the forum to get good information on physics and current science. If you wanted you could head over to www.physicsforums.com and just do a search these questions are asked all the time.

 

[DrPizza]

There does appear to be some evidence for one of the multi-verse theories in the form of patterns in the cosmic microwave background radiation.

 

[Locut0s]

There does appear to be some evidence for one of the multi-verse theories in the form of patterns in the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Yeah I heard about this but it's very very tentative evidence and from what I understand there are other equally good explanations.

 

[Locut0s]

Doesn't the state of energy and matter determine the value that you give to maximum possible entropy? I mean, it isn't really the maximum possible entropy if energy and matter are incapable of conforming to it.

You don't know what entropy is do you?

Essentially entropy is a measure of a systems "orderliness" the more orderly the system the lower the entry. The more messy or chaotic it looks the higher the entropy.