Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

Fried Frog-legs,I still find this hypothesis a concept of fairy tale proportions. I want to share with you part of the Greek myth of the creation of the world. My source is: http://www.desy.de/gna/interpedia/greek_myth/creation.htmlIn the beginning there was only chaos. Then out of the void appeared Erebus, the unknowable place where death dwells, and Night. All else was empty, silent, endless, darkness. Then somehow Love was born bringing a start of order. From Love came Light and Day. Once there was Light and Day, Gaea, the earth appeared.And on http://www.hellenism.net/eng/theo1.htm I found this concerning the theology of the Greeks:Before order imposed on the universe "chaos" existed. An unordered and formless primordial mass from which all things created, including the gods. Chaos had several children with himself, such as Erebus, Nyx, Eros, and Gaia.Now this is off of Berkeley’s website: http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/...on/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html[A]t some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.
Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons.The ancient Greeks started out with Chaos, an unordered and formlessmass. Modern Big Bang proponents begin with nothing but quickly move on to a singularity from which our Universe was born.Chaos had several children with himself, while, photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons.
I agree, not a perfect fit, but I hope that you can see the similarities. Since when does a person (Chaos) have children by himself? Similar thought: Since when does light (photons) turn into matter?
I remember watching my little brother trying to ‘catch’ a sunbeam while he was less then a year old. I doubt any of us have been any more successful then he was. It doesn’t work.
Then quarks, suddenly decide to get together and form neutrons and protons? My friends, this is less likely then the ACLU joining forces with the Christian Coalition for no reason. There are no causeless effects. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. We agree what the reaction is (the Universe), but what could it be, that would cause that first action?Joe

Don't you think that ultimately, all narratives about the formation of the observable universe are going to be, at least on some level, similar? There's only a few ways to tell a story about the beginning of something.The question isn't which scenario is the most or least similar to other mythologies, but which is best supported by the evidence. And that's simply the inflationary universe model. You'd have to ask a particle physicist. But you must have heard of "E=MC^2"? Maybe you didn't know what that means, but that's an equation describing how matter and energy can be transformed into each other. This is experimentally proven. We ended WWII with two of the experiments. And you reach this conclusion from exactly what expertise? I wasn't aware the Navy was handing out degrees in high-energy particle physics. Except in your view, God is uncaused. And in my view, since time doesn't extend beyond the universe, there can't be a "cause" because there's no "before" before time. So this isn't really anything but a smokescreen. After all, if you really believed that there were no causeless effects, you couldn't believe in God, the ultimate Uncaused Cause, now could you? I don't understand why you keep ignoring me when I tell you that there's no "before" before time. Are you having reading problems, perhaps? How could the universe be "caused" if there's no "before" for the cause to happen in?

All myths seem to have a common thread.http://members.aol.com/egyptart/crea.html
Egyption mythology is another example:"In the beginning there was only water, a chaos of churning, bubbling water, this the Egyptians called Nu or Nun. It was out of Nu that everything began."Look here my fine fried frog friend, you cannot tell me that events couldn't happen sequentially before the Big Bang. If things couldn't happen, then nothing would have happened, for how then could anything happen.
I mean, either something could happen, which would mean there would need to be a cause for the Big Bang, or, things couldn't happen, and that would be a little rough to explain considering we are all here and "happening".As far as God goes, I believe in a causeless God. Yes I admit it. You however, believe in a causeless AND Godless Universe. Come on buddy, you need one or the other."Belief in a causeless God as the Creator of all things has more logic to it, in this world of cause and effect, than belief in a causeless universe and a non-existent God. It is by believing in a causeless Creator that we save ourselves from believing in the impossibility of a causeless universe."-Author unknownJoe

And since you were so kind to ask, my reading is fine, thank you for your concern.

Did the ancients
make predictions based on their creation event and then have those predictions confirmed by observation (ripples in the microwave background radiation)? Did they refine, alter and verify their ideas with respect to observation? Hell, did they base anything at all about their ideas on observation?Myths, just like the biblical one, are just that - myths. The big bang theory is not a myth, it is an empirically derived theory - derived from observation of the universe.Incidently, I've not looked that website you posted but if you quoted it correctly then they are equivocating different ideas. We know there was a big bang because of the evidence that supports it, that's why it's a theory and not a hypothesis. The idea that the Big Bang emerged from vacuum fluctuations on the other hand is just a hypothesis - there is not (yet?) any evidence for it. There are many more hypothesises out there.And this, in and of itself, is another reason why the Big Bang is not a myth, but science. It doesn't have all the answers - there are great many questions left needing answers.Oh, and a comment on something you said earlier: there are most definetly causeless events - Quantum Mechanics makes this very clear and vacuum fluctuations prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

You made claims about predictions regarding the effects of the Big Bang and then those predictions then being validated. How about a few examples. If we are talking about science, there should be plenty. Since this is not a religion, I'm not going to blindly trust what you say.
I thought that Berekley was a big name that would be privy to the newest studies and information. Prehaps you should get in contact with them and tell them the errors of thier ways. I'm sure they would appreciate your advice.
As to your point concerning microwave backround radiation noise. I agree that it is there, but how does it prove the Big Bang? I have heard it described as an echo of the Big Bang, but an echo off of what?
No, I'm sorry, I must disagree, this is at best a hypothesis, but more honestly a myth.
Thank you
Joe

If you actually care to inform yourself I suggest you pick up a copy of the February 2004 issue of Scientific American from your newsagent and have a read. Much of what I'm talking about is discussed there. I've already told you: ripples in the microwave background radiation."In 1968, Joseph Silk predicted that the small-scale acoustic peaks in the CMB should be damped in a specific, calculable way. As a result, the corresponding radiation would gain a small but precisely known polarization... This acousric polarization was measured by the Degree Angular Scale Inferometer and later by WMAP; the value was in beautiful agreement with predictions."- Scientific American, Feb 2004, p.38-39, emphasis mine, some explanatory text omitted. The page you refer to is a 'primer' designed for people like yourself who are scientifically ignorant. As is usual practice in such situations they have omitted most details and much complications from their descriptions. The term echo is used analogously. It is not an accurate description. See the Scientific American mentioned above for an brief explanation.It proves the big bang because its properties match with those predicted by the big bang model.

I guess I just don't see the fruitfulness of trying to speculate about what happens before the universe. One this is clear - conventions and conclusions based on the presence of time just aren't going to be valid before time exists.But one thing is clear: the universe exists. The god of the Bible does not (though cosmology is not the reason I conclude that). Since we don't know what it takes, if anything, to cause a universe to come to be, we just can't make any conclusions about what made this one happen. The existence of the universe simply doesn't neccessitate the existence of your God.Have you considered that perhaps it's impossible for a universe not to exist? How do you know that non-existence is even possible for a universe?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-16-2004]

Frog,
I'm sure you don't see the fruitfulness of speculating about what happened before the universe. If you did, you would realize your argument has more holes then 10 pounds of swiss cheese."One this is clear - conventions and conclusions based on the presence of time just aren't going to be valid before time exists."You appear to be making a rash assumption about time. Look, the Big Bang, if it happened, was an event. Events don't happen outside of time. Nothing sequential CAN happen outside of time."Have you considered that perhaps it's impossible for a universe not to exist? How do you know that non-existence is even possible for a universe?"This is moot point considering it does exist. And even if the concept is worth thinking about, are you implying that the universe itself is a god-like-thing that could not be denied, no matter what? Follow that train of thought to it's logical conclusion and you won’t end up an Atheist anymore. Are you saying that our universe has a destiny? I don’t know, this is sounding all real mystical all of the sudden. But then again, all religions do when you dig deep enough.Joe

Assumption. Assumption.

Actually I'll expand on that.Whatever 'happened' at the 'start' of the universe (if there is such a thing) it must have been different from what is happening now, thus we have no reason to assume that what we experience in everyday life (which incidently is a poor basis for any kind of science) applies then.

quote:

---

As far as God goes, I believe in a causeless God. Yes I admit it. You however, believe in a causeless AND Godless Universe. Come on buddy, you need one or the other.

---

Hi! Can you tell me why one needs one or the other?It seems to me that if you believe in a causeless God you believe in a causeless universe. If God created the universe and God has no cause then the very existence of the universe is still, ultimately, causeless.

In my own small way, I'd like to offer a couple of analogies on the topic of expanding space and time.
First is a balloon: The expansion of space may be likened to the increase in surface area of the balloon when blown up. Where does the extra area of the balloon come from? Our understanding of 3space says that the additional area is a result of the stretching of the (fabric of the) balloon into the third dimension. This is an imperfect analogy as we AFAIK cannot observe expansion of space into another dimension.
Second is the Earth: Where is the beginning of a line of longitude? One can clearly travel along it for an infinite distance around and around the earth. So the accepted view of time as sequential and having a beginning may be a result of our limited scope of observation. Or you could consider the beginning of time to be now as the beginning of a journey may be said to be here.

The obvious shortcoming in this arguement is that on a journey from California to Florida, I could stop (we have no indications that time has ever stopped) or I could turn around (we have never seen time go backwards). Here on earth, we have choices about travel; where we go, how fast we go, etc. In time, a minute passes in a minute's time, and thats the way it's always been observed.
Mr Jack, to say that the effects of time somehow wouldn't apply on a one-time basis, when throughtout the history of man, no one has been able to operate outside of time, seems like fanatical fantasy with no scientific bearing at all. Perhaps you could point on an experiment that was able to change time.
Is the Big Bang a historical event? If it is then it would need a cause like every other historical event. If it isn't, then it never happened. That is not merely an assumption, that just makes sense.Joe

Just to nitpick, it's not an argument. It's an analogy. It's not intended to be perfect, but simply to allude to a better understanding. Time doesn't "go" anywhere. Time is a measure of our experience of things. It exists in our minds. Actually, it's been shown that space-time intervals expand and contract depending on relative velocity. In principle, one person's minute can be another person's week or month. It is doubtful that the phrases "within time" or "outside of time" are at all meaningful when talking about actual physical reality. Time is not an object, and as such to place it as the object of a prepositional phrase in these cases can be metaphorical at best, and deceptive at worst.The point is, then, that just as we've never known anyone to be "outside of time," we've never really known anyone to be "within time" either. You should read up on Einstein's Twins Paradox. At relativistic velocity differentials, time passes at significantly different rates for different people. First you should demonstrate that all historical events have causes. It seems from our recent (actually becoming not-so-recent) quantum observations that your assertion is false. Truthfully, common sense has proven to be a very poor judge of the workings of reality.[This message has been edited by ::, 03-16-2004]