Big Bang Critics

The name comes from astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, and was originally intended as ridicule. Hoyle had an alternative theory (the steady state theory), but the evidence favored BB cosmology. Although intended as ridicule, the name stuck.

2ice_baked_taters What do you mean that it changes form 2i_b_t?

Silas would better answer this. I hypothesize:
1) The 'expanding universe' evidence supports singularity ... a central core of expansion (if that is what you're getting at).
2) Parsimony exists in singularity of expansion (i.e., it's easier to construe)
3) The Creation-Phenomenon begs *one set of rules*, not many.
4) Theists will construe one *Designer*
5) Etc.
(Please specify what you mean by singularity) Ah, the *Alpha-event-of-the-alpha-event*. Time eventually *eludes* scientists (as do quarks, light, life, and metaphysics)
(I’ll not respond again as my specialty is not astrophysics. I do *wish*, however, that great scientists (like Silas) would provide disclaimers (as do physicians) concerning the 'bounds of their big-bang knowledge')Edited by Philip, : a little refining

Energy to matter/matter to energy
or more accurately matter being energy in a specific state.
Do we have any evidence that what is ceases to be? Or is it that what "is" simply changes states of being.

Why is it assumed that things began at a singularity? We see evidence for expansion. What did the universe expand into? What is it displacing? We assume all that we know is the entire universe. We are more than likely quite naive in this department.
To make the statement that the expansion we see began at a singularity is more accurate. To say the universe began there is specualtion based on limited knowledge.
A singularity being all energy in the known universe being in one dense point. We assume things about this. There may be an entire dynamic going on in what we describe as a singuarity that we would never be able to detect. We asume an Alpha event. It is our frame of reference just as time is.

Simply because General Relativity predicts a singularity, no other reason. GR is a classical theory, so the inevitable quantum corrections may remove the singularity. This may "smooth" off the universe at T=0, removing any real "beginning", or it may open the universe to an infinite, possibly cyclical past. As you said: Very true. But it doesn't stop us from trying to understand. According to GR, the answers are nothing and nothing. The universe isn't so much getting bigger, just the distance between points is increasing. Distance is a strangly maleable concept in GR.

Who wants to stop trying? This is assuming that what we know is all there is. This is most unlikely don't you think?

Actually, it only assumes that GR can describe space correctly. It has done a fine job of it so far...Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

2ice_baked_taters I think you are confusing matter with mass {as in E=MC^2}. Mass and energy is equivalent in mass-energy conservation. Matter is a different matter.For instance, if you heat an object its mass increases but the matter remains the same.If you have two objects collide in an inelastic impact the mass sums to greater than the individual bodies had yet the amount of matter remains the same. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

This current paradigm seems to *confuse* everyone but physicists (http://explorepdx.com/bitofsci.html):1) "Matter is substance; something we perceive" (albeit solid, liquid, gas).Metaphysical reality as well as physical seems invoked by the word 'perceive'. Hence the physicist's frustration.2) "Mass is an abstraction related to forces and interactions of matter with matter."Seeing matter is perceptual and metaphysical (by definition) I'm not convinced that matter truly remains the same, perhaps even in your isolated examples. However, matter might remain invulnerable from your philosophical viewpoint (I don't know).Then (*of course*) there's *The Reality of Antimatter* (Sun) "created and annihilated in stars every day"*Quoting Robert Britt (from 2003):
"To better understand the elusive nature of antimatter, we must back up to the beginning of time.In the first seconds after the Big Bang, there was no matter, scientists suspect. Just energy. As the universe expanded and cooled, particles of regular matter and antimatter were formed in almost equal amounts..."

---

DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.

Please correct me on this statement if I am mistaken.It is likely that matter is the expression of energy in a given state. If everything began as energy this must be true. Matter in effect being an expression or manifestation of energy.
Matter may indeed simply be a property of energy.
Metaphysical carries a stigma. The prejudicial view should be dropped considering the fancy of string thoery and dimensions. There is a bigger picture we need to see and politics really fogs the view.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : new thought

2ice_baked_taters, physicists (here) would appreciate more precise mathematical definitions to avoid abominable metaphysical inquiry.I’m already concerned that anti-matter (AKA *anti-mass* or something) data severely contradicts itself to physicists here and that you might hypothesize most anything about the beginning of the creation.My take herein is: that there’s just not much credulity to be expected from astro-physicists in this elusive area of science. My own disclaimer, thus. . A lot of *peculiar boundless* energy I’d speculate.1) Peradventure boundless/infinite energy to produce infinite space-time continuum(s)
2) Peradventure political-religious Energy from a singular Redeeming Designer that *makes the rules of the cosmos*I suspect astro-physicist Silas (though himself a “non-believer” 2 years ago) would agree somewhat with this.

---

DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.

Speak for yourself. Let's see if the physicists will let this pass:Matter and energy are interchangeable, like light and electricity are interchangeable. You can convert electricity into light using a light bulb. You can convert light into electricty using a photocell.Mass is a property of matter, like redness is a property of apples.You can convert matter to energy, but you can not convert mass to energy any more than you can convert redness to apples.Edited by Ringo, : Spellink.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Not a chance Mass is a property of matter AND energy. Mass is what gravity couples to, it is what curves space. In Relativity we call it stress-energy just to be obtuse.Matter is the name we give to the excitations of a specific type of quantum energy field: fermionic fields give rise to fermions. They tend to have mass, but not very much. Examples are quarks, electrons, neutrinos, etc.Solid stuff (technical term) is made up of both matter fermions and "force" bosons. The mass of solid stuff consists of the mass of the actual matter fermions (tiny) and the effective mass of all of the binding energy holding the solid stuff together (huge). About 0.1% of the mass of a proton comes from the mass of the three matter fermions (quarks) making up the proton.To say you can convert matter to energy is a little misleading. You can convert a pair of fermions into a pair of photons. Fermions have mass, photons do not. So in a sense you have convereted matter to energy, but what you have really done is exchange a pair of particles called matter for a different pair of particles which aren't called matter!!

Obrigado tambem, Cavediver.This is given me knew insights into this stuff that I've never stumbled across before.