Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

SInce this thread is on the Big Bang and we have already mentioned Lematre, you might want to start at this page for some of the early math. Please remember that this is only an early effort, from arouond 75 years ago. But it will give you a place to get started if you really want to understand it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nope, haveing done a lot of programming in several languages for a variety of purposes and having taken the beginnings of higher mathematics I can say that you are very, very unlikely to have the math skilss yet. You can list off the areas you know but if it doesn't include the differential calculus and group theory then you haven't even started, not scratched the surface, not a tiny little bit.

and the little raw text button at the bottom of all the posts will show you what someone entered to produce what you see on the page.

The equations for the motion of a body under the influence of gravity are basically Newton's laws of motion plus that for the gravitation force. Google those and you will find them.However, it turns out that to precisely calculate the furture position of a body when there are 3 or more bodies interacting isn't possible. I don't know the reason for that.These calculations are on the very, very simple end of things. Very simple. In fact my daughter took them (and special relavity ) in grade 11.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/...1/lect/history/newtongrav.htmlIt covers (I just scanned it quickly) laws of motion and gravitation. If you have questions ask away.

You are missing the damn point. Pure science is evidence driven. Right now, the evidence show us that there are things that happen without causes. It doesn't matter if one day we may find it false, it is still the case that, right now as far as we know based on the evidence that we currently have, there are things that happen without causes. What's your point?As far as we know, everything that can be objectively defined can be described by mathematical equations. And no, scientists didn't have to create a new kind of math. They just applied old concepts to new findings.

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Every other time science has thought that something had no cause science turned out to be wrong. Before the 1800s science did not even know about micro-organisms and the germs that caused disease. They had other theories as to the cause of disease which now seem stupid to us. One of the Greek philosophers, I forget which one, thought that certain kinds of fish came into existence for no reason, because he could not see the microscopic eggs from which they hatched.My point is that science is once again assuming, in quantum mechanics, that since things appear to have no cause, they actually have no cause! Don't you think it would be more intellectually honest to say that "we don't know why quantum mechanics behaves this way" instead of saying "quantum mechanics behaves this way for no reason?"

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

It's not that we've been unable to find causes; it's that we've done experiments for which the best explanations are causeless.At that point, there's absolutely no reason to propose causes where none can be found simply so that you can say that every effect has a cause.

As far as I know there is still no one current theory that has a full explaination of how the Universe came to be. One theory is the Big Bang, another is that our current universe is a result of a membrane moving within 5 dimentions collided with a outer membrane resulting in what we see as the Big Bang. Another theory is God did it. Anyone who claims to have undisputable verifiable evidence should be more than willing to step up. All current theories have problems. The big bang has some evidence to back up the claims that a event did occur. Observations by Hubble etc.. That being said there are still gaps in human knowlege. Inserting God into the gaps is just as pretentious as inserting "there was no cause". The jury is still out on this one I believe. When it comes to trying to discuss the beginning of the beginning, or the cause of the cause, words break down. I believe things are the way they are because they could not be any other way. If it were so then we would perhaps observe something other than what we are observing.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Heh, a little off there.1) It's "brane", not "membrane"
2) Brane theory is simply a way to explain why the big bang occured, not to replace it. There is little doubt in science that the big bang occurred; we can even use telescopes to look back in time toward the big bang. The big bang theory allowed us to predict the cosmic microwave background radiation and its distrubution well before it was discovered. Etc. Observations of the universe just doesn't make sense without it.One can say certainly say that God created the big bang, but to deny the big bang without coming up with an alternative explanation for all extant astronomical observations (apart from "God wanted to trick us into thinking that the big bang occurred!"), is irresponsible.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Eupyrotic Universe theory that I was describing is as I said a example or explaination of how the BB could of occurred. Brane being short for "membrane". I as well agree that evidence corraborated by scientific observation points to the BB. My point was that implying there is no cause seems to be a bit presumptuous. Granted there very well be no cause does not mean there was not one. Perhaps it perturbs atheist that one would assume it was God. Just as it perturbs theist that one would assume there was no cause. I on the other hand do not pretend to know the answer. And guess what? No one else does either.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

And what is wrong with that? It would be kind of silly to theorize about stuff that you can't see or know about, stuff like "germs" and such. Science at the time was doing its best and I applaud them for it. It's better than the traditional "shut up, don't ask, just know that goddunit." Well, the vast majority of scientists out there would altimately use the phrase "we just don't don't know enough about it right now." However, it still doesn't do anything to the fact that as far as the evidence we have now, some things do appear to have no cause. Perhaps one day we may find that this very concept is absurd. Until then, we're doing the best we can.Added by edit:I apologize to those that are offended by the last sentence of my first paragraph there. If it makes you feel good "knowing" that goddunit is the best explanation, you go you.This message has been edited by Darth Mal, 09-14-2004 02:41 PM

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

We do not know why quantum mechanics behaves this way because we do not know why nature behaves this way.It is not that that nature does not actually have a cause it is that there has as yet been no way found to get around the findings of quantum mechanics though you are welcome to try.
Is the world seem crazy according to quantum mechanics? Yes. Does it agree with experiment?Yes and to an incredibly high degree.Theory matches experiment to an accuracy equivalent to measuring the distance from L.A. to New York to within the width of a human hair.

Yes, they were doing their best, but they still turned out to be wrong. I think there is something we are missing, something that we can't yet see, that is creating the effects of quantum mechanics. Shouldn't we learn from the previous scientists that claimed spontaneous generation was true but were later proven wrong? The evidence they had seemed to support it, but later evidence showed they were wrong. How come the current evidence of quantum mechanics is now going through the same thing? We should learn from the mistakes of history and not conclude that something can be caused by nothing.I guess you could argue that while these previous scientists were wrong about spontaneous generation in what they were studying, the nature of QM is different because these are the most basic building blocks of nature or something like that. In other words, spontaneous generation is only true at the most fundamental level. But is QM really the most fundamental level? I think not. There is a huge flaw - the inability of QM to account for gravity. And while relativity can account for gravity, it can't do it when particles are in the tiny sizes of QM. Attempts to combine these two theories have met the little or no success.So basically there is SOMETHING really wrong with QM when it comes to gravity, and this should indicate that the theory as a whole is getting something wrong.Additionally, there has been somewhat of a return to the Einstienian (is that a real word?) view that nature is ultimately described by classical physics. Some progress has been made in this area - for example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has been succesfully described with classical physics. The uncertainty principle is one the the most important aspects of quantum mechanics. While this is admittedly only stratching the surface of QM, it seems to have promise.Basically, my argument is that in the past those who advocated spontaneous generation were proven wrong, so modern scientists should not jump to the same conclusions about QM, ESPECIALLY since there are serious indications that something is wrong with QM.

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

Hello,
i'm french
i have just finished to translate my web site about the big bang ,
i would to know what do you think about my site, and if you can say to me if there are some mistakes, and what they are ( about language).
thanks you and sorry for my bad english
my web site : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/bigbangtpe
my email : levraigoodman6@hotmail.com