Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Origin?
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 46 of 57 (282266)
01-29-2006 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by pianoprincess*
01-24-2006 9:21 PM


it's fine to reply to the original message. but take note to read the thread to be sure that what you have to say hasn't been said or refuted already.
poor grammar might be a style issue but it is one that significantly affects the readability of a post. eliminated capitalization when paired with correct punctuation and well-planned spacing does not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-24-2006 9:21 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 47 of 57 (282267)
01-29-2006 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Peal
01-28-2006 9:57 PM


Re: off topic do not reply.
eh. shit happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Peal, posted 01-28-2006 9:57 PM Peal has not replied

  
pianoprincess*
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 57 (283742)
02-03-2006 9:23 PM


PLEASE DON'T CUSS!!
and still, I'm curious as to where the original matter cam from for the big bang to take place. ??? What do most scientists think on this? If they don't know, then they still need an explination for where the universe and everything originated.

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-03-2006 9:43 PM pianoprincess* has not replied
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2006 10:32 PM pianoprincess* has replied
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 02-04-2006 3:01 AM pianoprincess* has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 49 of 57 (283749)
02-03-2006 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by pianoprincess*
02-03-2006 9:23 PM


if you don't want to see cuss words, you can have your browser remove them for you. however, this board does not have any rules on obscenity, which is first amendment protected speech, and as such i can and will exercise my rights as i see fit.
then they still need an explination for where the universe and everything originated.
i'd say the where is right here. well. not here on earth so to speak but sort of since the universe is still expanding, all of here used to be in a much smaller place.
matter (mass) is conserved. it didn't come from anywhere. it cannot be destroyed or created. except when it is converted to energy by rapid acceleration. so i'd say there was energy that slowed down and became stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by pianoprincess*, posted 02-03-2006 9:23 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 57 (283769)
02-03-2006 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by pianoprincess*
02-03-2006 9:23 PM


matter came from
The problem comes from thinking linearly.
There was no before the big bang for there to have been matter to exist in to be involved in the big bang.
The big bang theory isn't about where did the universe come from, its just a description of the universe. It has length, breadth, height and time.
Its very confusing. As I am typing this I am about 3 metres above the ground, 1 metre away from my north wall and half a metre from the east wall. But I am also about +15,000,000,000 years after the universe was very hot and very dense.
I found it very hard to really appreciate this, and its quite a trippy experience when you 'get' it.
So, at the moment science simply sticks with 'The universe exists, here are its dimensions and how they work and interact'. Science does not know what 'caused' the universe to exist, if anything did. Unfortunately we have learned that some things don't happen because something causes them to, they just happen. Hopefully something did cause us to happen, but I'm open to the possibility that nothing did and we just are.
I doubt science is going to explain any of that in the near future. The laws of reality that occur outside of our universe may well (probably are) different from the laws that occur within it (what we call the laws of nature). In that sense these possible 'meta' laws, are metaphysical in nature and are supernatural). It might not be possible to ever learn about these laws in any direct way, but we might be able to deduce them as time passes. Some scientists are trying to do this very thing, and some interesting ideas have surfaced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by pianoprincess*, posted 02-03-2006 9:23 PM pianoprincess* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by pianoprincess*, posted 02-04-2006 2:14 AM Modulous has replied

  
pianoprincess*
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 57 (283808)
02-04-2006 2:09 AM


i'd say the where is right here. well. not here on earth so to speak but sort of since the universe is still expanding, all of here used to be in a much smaller place.
why do you say the universe is still expanding. that has not been proven.
And the rules do say to be respectful. I'd just apreciate it if you wouldn't. =)

  
pianoprincess*
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 57 (283811)
02-04-2006 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Modulous
02-03-2006 10:32 PM


Re: matter came from
There was no before the big bang for there to have been matter to exist in to be involved in the big bang.
I fthere was no before, then there couldn't have been an after. and we are quite obviously after, according to your theory. =)
The big bang theory isn't about where did the universe come from
so big bang/evolutionary thinkers don't have a theory for where the universe came from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2006 10:32 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2006 8:08 AM pianoprincess* has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 53 of 57 (283816)
02-04-2006 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by pianoprincess*
02-03-2006 9:23 PM


The Higg's Field
This is really over my head. I just read popularized versions of this and my degree is so old I forgot everything and it is only a BSc but....
It seems the universe HAD to "bang" because that is the nature of space time as described by general relativity. In addition, something called the Higg's field can supply an enormous pressure to cause something that is like "negative gravity" and force a tremendously fast expansion of space time (inflation).
The "cooling" of the Higgs field is where a LOT of energy can come from. There was no "matter", in the sense we usually use, at first. Just energy but as it "cools" then matter can form. Remember matter and energy are all the same thing.
I don't understand it well enough to explain and I'm not sure how simple it can be made. I suggest if you really want the answers that Brian Greene's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" is a good place to try. It pulls no punches but use no math. (The lack of math means you won't really "get it" but at least you are introduced to the ideas and the math would be waaaay to hairy for us to grapple with anyway.)
Remember, we measure the expansion of space in a number of ways, there is no sensible doubt that it happens.
We have, through general relativity (GR), good theoretical reasons to expect there to have been a big bang. GR has been tested, the predictions made about the nature of the universe that should have resulted have been tested and have proven out.
The complete answer is not yet in place but you are not the only one asking questions. There are cosmolgists and physicists around the world attempting to answer the big question.
The big bang is, it seems, now "old hat". That isn't an issue anymore. That is the simple stuff .
As for time, the analogy that has been used here several times is that if you keep going north (or back in time) eventually you get to a place where there is no more "north" left (or any time before left). It is entirely possible to describe spacetime as haveing a point with no "before" just as there is a place on the earth with no "north". How accurate a description of the universe that is I can't judge but it looks pretty good so far.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-04-2006 03:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by pianoprincess*, posted 02-03-2006 9:23 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 54 of 57 (283832)
02-04-2006 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by pianoprincess*
02-04-2006 2:14 AM


Re: matter came from
I fthere was no before, then there couldn't have been an after. and we are quite obviously after, according to your theory. =)
Actually, there is no 'after' in a sense either.
There is no after the universe any more than there is a before the universe as described by the big bang. The big bang merely describes the universe as-is. It can't explain what happens 'after' the universe, or 'before' the universe and it can't necessarily explain if it makes any sense to consider before and after anyway.
All it can say is that the smaller the time dimension the hotter and denser the universe was, the greater the time dimension the cooler and more spread out the universe is.
To us, time is divided into Past, present, future. When Time is 0s there is no past, so trying to work out what happened before it, according to our models of time, is practically impossible.
What happens before time starts? What happens after time ends?
How can something happen if there is no time for it to happen in?
Big questions.
There is an 'after' Time=0
There is a 'before' Time=maximum
All we can describe is the universe between these two points (if the latter point exists at all)
so big bang/evolutionary thinkers don't have a theory for where the universe came from?
There are some interesting ideas, but no solid theories. As I said, it might not be possible to use the laws of nature to deduce how the laws of nature came into being...though we might uncover some of the meta-physics, its unlikely we'll know the whole caboodle.
However, many people that accept General Relativity/Big Bang/Evolution have their own ideas about how the universe got here. Cavediver is the biggest big bang/relativity guy in these forums right now, and he believes that the Christian God brought the universe into existence and our theories merely describe that which God created. Read some of his posts to get a more accurate idea on his thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by pianoprincess*, posted 02-04-2006 2:14 AM pianoprincess* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by pianoprincess*, posted 02-04-2006 12:31 PM Modulous has replied

  
pianoprincess*
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 57 (283883)
02-04-2006 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Modulous
02-04-2006 8:08 AM


Re: matter came from
There are some interesting ideas, but no solid theories. As I said, it might not be possible to use the laws of nature to deduce how the laws of nature came into being...
So it mostly liekly came form something other than 'natural' in the sense that we are used to speaking of?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2006 8:08 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 02-04-2006 12:37 PM pianoprincess* has not replied
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2006 12:43 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 56 of 57 (283885)
02-04-2006 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by pianoprincess*
02-04-2006 12:31 PM


Re: matter came from
So it mostly liekly came form something other than 'natural' in the sense that we are used to speaking of?
No, not that at all. There is no indication that it was not natural, just not understood.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by pianoprincess*, posted 02-04-2006 12:31 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 57 of 57 (283890)
02-04-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by pianoprincess*
02-04-2006 12:31 PM


Re: matter came from
So it mostly liekly came form something other than 'natural' in the sense that we are used to speaking of?
Where nature means = universe. Then yes. It could be that our natural laws are really only a subset of the Great Rules of Reality. The Great Rules are 'natural' but not in the way we traditionally mean natural. Or it could be that the Great Rules are heavenly in nature, or anything else that is beyond our ken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by pianoprincess*, posted 02-04-2006 12:31 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024