Problems with the Big Bang theory

I recall that cavediver wrote a pretty good description about how the production of virtual particles are explained through quantum field theory. I haven't been able to find it, and I have been waiting for him to step in and repeat it.(If you don't do this, cavediver, I'll have to do this myself, and since I don't know QFT myself I'm sure the results are going to be a bit of a mess!)

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Actually, the universe has always existed, too.Think about it. If time "began" with the universe so that before the beginning of the universe there was no "time", then there was never a point in time when the universe didn't exist.Pretty mind blowing stuff, actually.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

They haven't. They have an amount of time since the laws of physics operate in a way that we understand. Before that time, the laws of physics which we understand no longer work, and so we don't really have a good idea of what the universe was like before then.But scientists can continue extrapolate backwards in time (taking into account the extrapolation may not be valid) and arrive at a singularity that marks the "beginning" of the universe.But this singularity marks the beginning of time itself -- there was no "before" this singularity. Asking what was before this singularity is like asking what is north of the North Pole -- the question itself is nonsense.Therefore, there was no time at which the universe did not exist. So one can say that the universe has always existed. Even though it may only have a finite age. Weird, huh?

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

quote:

---

when something explodes, the particles that fly off all spin in the same direction.

---

This is false. When something explodes, the eddies in the expanding material will all have angulary momenta in different directions.Added by edit:
And no one has to take my word for it. All they have to do is watch slow motion movies of rabidly expanding material (even material exploding). You can even see the different eddies spinning in different directions.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

quote:

---

If not, then please explain to me how something can just move away from itself without an explosion, pop, whatever, if it is condensed in the first place.

---

It is just a feature of our universe. According to General Relativity, space will just expand or contract -- it is part of the nature of space itself. So, either the universe must expand, or it must contract. It happens to be expanding. And as space expands, it carries the material within along with it.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

quote:

---

I am well aware that the bang in big bang is for descriptive purposes only.

---

No. The bang in Big Bang is for derisive purposes. Hoyle made up the term "Big Bang" as a disparaging term for a theory that he felt was false.Here is the Big Bang theory in one sentence and in non-technical language. Long ago the universe was very, very dense. It was also very, very hot. And space was expanding. Well, okay, that's three sentences. But I did nail the non-technical languate part, doncha think?

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Actually, I don't think we do need a cause. But that seems to irritate some people. Maybe I should post this in the Controversial Opinions thread?

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

quote:

---

Is that a scientific process you invoke?

---

No. It is beyond science. Science basically describes what happens in the universe. I doubt it will ever be able to answer a question like why the universe exists.Think about strange the question is. The "beginning of the universe" is the beginning of time itself. Before the beginning, there was no time. It is like asking what is north of the North Pole. It is a nonsense question; by definition, the North Pole is the northern most point.In the same way, the ultimate beginning of the universe is the very first instant of time. There is no "before". So what does one mean by a "cause" for the universe? When people say "A causes B", they mean that they see A precede B in time. But nothing can precede the universe in time, because there is no time before the universe itself. Therefore, when people talk about a "cause" for the universe, I don't really know what they mean.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

quote:

---

It makes me glad to report that the Bible doesn't say that God (the creator) lives in time, but that He lives eternally.

---

Which is irrelevant to the thread here.-

quote:

---

Do you find it a coincidence that the Bible could have avoided that trap?

---

First of all, I don't see this as a trap. By definition, the universe consists of everything that exists. Therefore, by definition, there is nothing outside of the universe. Therefore, there is no external "cause" for the universe. Because once you posit that there is something beyond the "universe", then you are really saying that the universe is a little bit bigger than what we initially thought.Second, the Bible doesn't avoid the "trap" anyway. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that God is outside of the universe or time. But that is not on topic here, and I don't want to reinvoke Asgara's wrath.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

quote:

---

So you say all that without leaning me an option to reply?

---

Just the Bible stuff. You can start a new thread if you want to discuss that. Arachnophilia and Brian might like to discuss the particular verses you would bring up.But the "beginning" of the universe stuff and the "first cause" stuff might be on topic here, if you want to continue there.-

quote:

---

talk about a trap!

---

Heh. I wish I was that clever.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Who cares what physics says? I already told you that if you watch a slow motion movie of an explosion, then you will see, with your own eyes, that your claim was wrong. This is called an experiment. It is very important in verifying scientific claims. Experiments show that your statement is wrong.But if you insist on knowing what physics says, cavediver already told you that, too. Physics says that you are wrong.But why ask anyone what physics says? You can find out for yourself. Go to a library. Ask the librarian to show you the physics texts. Look up angular momentum.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck