Da big bang

[Ferret]

Do you believe it?

gotta get this science forum rolling somehow

[Decker]

Put it like this.

There is a factory that produces blank white paper, the only paper in the whole building. Now throw in some dynamite and blow it up. Once thing settle down you'll find a brand new fresh dictionary amid all the rubble created by the dynamite and blank white paper.

On a more scientific level...no.

[Ferret]

I agree it sounds very unlikely, but unlikely things have to happen sometimes otherwise they're impossible and as many say, nothing is impossible.

Seeing as you said no, how do you think the universe came into being?

[Ironside]

Going from the scientiffic formulas, you can pretty much say that the Big Bang explains what we see in the universe most correctly, because something must explain the Hubble law (increased red-shift with increased distance) and things like the microwave radiation.

That doesn't mean that it needs to feel like it makes sence for our understanding, partically before you've gotten everything on a satifying level of understanding, because some things really doesn't, particulary in quantum physics (and that's the level the Big Bang is on). Like electrons wave-interacting with themself.

[Decker]

I agree it sounds very unlikely, but unlikely things have to happen sometimes otherwise they're impossible and as many say, nothing is impossible.

That is true but we are talking about an explosion that created the intricate and complicated world we live in. Look at how the earth sits and rotates. And degree fast or slightly tipped off balance and we're all dead. Even the slightest bump or whatever and we're kaput.

Seeing as you said no, how do you think the universe came into being?

We'll I believe in the idea of a greater being (God), who created the universe and also us. And science is a way of explaining things or trying to find out how the world we live in works. Take for instance the human body (or you). Look at how complicated and interconnected everything is. It's hard to believe that we came from fish or whatever. Yea there is some evolutionary process in the human body, as with all animals, that allow them to adapt to new surroundings. But nothing from molecules, to fish, to monkeys, to us. I believe that God created the universe, but made it so that it could function on it's own without Him having to meddle with it all the time, and a good example is that of the human race and how it has grown, expanded, and adapted with the changing earth.

Hope that was kinda clear.

O and so what do you think?

[Ferret]

Personally I cannot comprehend God, it is not within my understanding of the universe and so it logically appears to me that there is no God. I agree with the Big Bang due to things such as Red Shift, mentioned by Ironside, but the intricacy of it all does make me wonder sometimes. I suppose you could say I'm an agnostic that leans towards atheism.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I'd just like to remind everyone that while this forum has been provided for your sciency needs, it is still an offshoot of The Frontroom. As such, while it is perfectly fine to discuss the science of the big bang and the beginning of the universe in general, if this turns into a big Science Vs Religion prizefight, it will be moved to the backroom. We've done that sort of debate a million times anyway, so I hope we'll stick with the science here.

Thank you, normal service is now resumed.

[Craterus]

Put it like this.

There is a factory that produces blank white paper, the only paper in the whole building. Now throw in some dynamite and blow it up. Once thing settle down you'll find a brand new fresh dictionary amid all the rubble created by the dynamite and blank white paper.

On a more scientific level...no.

What makes you think that the result of the Big Bang is so perfect?

Under your analogy, our universe may well be nothing more than rubble and singed sheets of paper. How can you say that what we have is so complex when you have not experienced the things that may be even more complex?

Also, it beats the idea of a perfect dictionary just popping into view? Or a perfect dictionary having existed all along (which is so logically unsound, but I won't have that argument again).

I hope this post made sense.

[Ironside]

The thing to remember with Big Bang and science is that we're still not close (relativly) to get an explaination on what happened at time 0. And while there's certainly room for a god running Sim Universe, we're not at the point we can say what the odds is. To get closer you'll need to quantify gravity and that's what the theory of everything is about.

Or to upt it differently we're are not in the state where we can determine if the Big Bang makes as much sence as Decker's explosion or as lighting a lightbulb.

[Decker]

What makes you think that the result of the Big Bang is so perfect?

I'm just putting in the way that the Big Bang has been described.

Under your analogy, our universe may well be nothing more than rubble and singed sheets of paper. How can you say that what we have is so complex when you have not experienced the things that may be even more complex?

I'm no scientist or anything, but I have seen tv shows, read articles, and seen things that make me realize that things, no matter how small, all intertwine. Just look at the human body.

Also, it beats the idea of a perfect dictionary just popping into view? Or a perfect dictionary having existed all along (which is so logically unsound, but I won't have that argument again).

It's an analogy. A complex book out of simple things. Look at how the universe works or our world for that matter. It's just a simple analogy that's all.

I hope this post made sense.

I get it a lil... hope I answered well enough for ya

I'd just like to remind everyone that while this forum has been provided for your sciency needs, it is still an offshoot of The Frontroom. As such, while it is perfectly fine to discuss the science of the big bang and the beginning of the universe in general, if this turns into a big Science Vs Religion prizefight, it will be moved to the backroom. We've done that sort of debate a million times anyway, so I hope we'll stick with the science here.

Thank you, normal service is now resumed.

Well, I'll try and keep it hopefully, in the periphery.

[Sigurd]

Hey… didn’t see this until today.

Firstly I have seriously doubts about the Big Bang theory. I am not saying I have the answer to the origin of our universe either. As some of you might remember I had a discussion going on this very subject in the ‘Does God Exist’ thread.
I was merely playing an apologist there as I find religion interesting.

In truth I am an agnostic and that means I should have all such question on a pending status.
Current Science is moving away from the perfect singularity that expanded aka. Big Bang.
Other explanation caters for the red shift and the other phenomena believed to have originated in such an event. I call it an event. By doing so we are all back in the cause event, cause event and first cause, first event routine. We will run into problems. If we need an uncaused reality why can’t that be the universe itself? It was never created; it has always been in one form or another or at least a part of the multiverse.

If we take God away from the equation, we should be very open for extra terrestrial life.
Having downloaded the World Wide Telescope (Thanks Papewaio) and read about the telescopes I realized just how probable that events such as transpired here on Tellus could very well have happened in the countless other galaxies around us.
No one really knows how big our universe is, but we like to define its size. And we do so by saying – this is as far as we can see and that is what we define as the edge of our universe.
Currently that is 78 billion light-years. Yes it is defined by the Hubble telescope.
In 1995 Hubble stared 10 days on an empty spot on our night sky. What came out of that picture was an image of at least 3000 galaxies. The image is called Hubble Deep field.
In 2003 Hubble tried it again on a different patch of seemingly empty space; this time with different filters. It stared on the spot for 11 days revealing an image 78 billion light-years away (take the length with a grain of salt as claims vary). This image contained at least 10 000 galaxies.
If we consider that our galaxy the milky way to have at least 500 000 000 000 solar systems with potential planets like our solar system, it will dawn on you the staggering numbers that lies around us on every pixel of dark space we can see on the night sky. That everything was contained in a perfect singularity at plank time is in my ears sure lunacy.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Viking]

Do you believe it?

gotta get this science forum rolling somehow

Epic start: opening the science forum with beliefs?

Not being a cosmologist, I'll not throw in my two cents. However, as observations goes on, the Big Bang theory just gets stronger and stronger; to my knowledge, reading astronomical journals.

Put it like this.

There is a factory that produces blank white paper, the only paper in the whole building. Now throw in some dynamite and blow it up. Once thing settle down you'll find a brand new fresh dictionary amid all the rubble created by the dynamite and blank white paper.

On a more scientific level...no.

That is not a valid analogy. Some time after the big bang, matter started to codensate, creating helium and hydrogen, which in turn condensated into giantic gas clouds. These gas clouds contiuned to grow in mass until the pressure got so high in the center of mass that fusion started, and a star had been born. Some of these stars died as supernovas, and in the later stages of a supernova process, the star creates elements heavier than oxygen through fusion; elements that the everything around us are made out of.

Around newer generations of stars, the dust cloud now contains heavier elements and not just hydrogen and helium. In these dust rings, matter start to accrete producing proto planets, which in turn accrete to create planets. Provided that the correct elements are present, and that the surface conditions on these planets are favourable, life will arise.

And there we are. The text above illustrates that nothing was random; when you drop a ball, it will fall to ground because there is gravity. If you unleash a big bang given the laws of this universe, you'll end up with planets and life.

[Andres]

Well, this is the science forum, so I don't understand what God is doing here

I for one, must admit that I don't know too much about this Big Bang theory.

What made scientists come to this conclusion?

Is the universe, according to scientists, still expanding after the big bang?

Which tools/methods do scientists use to measure this?

Will the universe one day, start getting smaller again? I mean, will it implode, only to explode (a new big bang) once again? Is it possible that there is a gigantic perpetuum mobile of imploding/exploding (Big Bang) of the universe?

According to scientists, does the universe stop? Is there a limit? Is that limit all planets, rocks, stars, whatever is floating around and beyond that, there is just space, with nothing in it?

I'm intrigued by black holes, but I must admit that I don't know very much about them.

I'm really interested in all this, but never got around actually studying this, so please, if there's someone who knows alot of astrology/astronomy/physics/whichevers scientific branch studies this subject, enlighten me.

And I beg thee, keep religion out of it. We have the backroom for that

[Viking]

According to scientists, does the universe stop? Is there a limit? Is that limit all planets, rocks, stars, whatever is floating around and beyond that, there is just space, with nothing in it?

Not really qualified to answer; but I'll give it a go.

Since the universe is expanding, it should be safe to assume that it must have something to expand into; and what it expand into is nothingness. No matter, no energy, no time. That means that if you magically somehow should pop up outside the universe, and looked in the direction of which the universe expands from, you'd not see anything since no light has reached your position yet; and when it does, the universe itself has expanded to your position also. I wonder if not the first light that reached you would be the flash from the BB itself.

[Samurai Waki]

I think the big bang is by far a biased scientific approach to the creation of the universe, as the complexities of which cannot be even be fathomed by any mortal human being today. I'm definitely with Sigurd on this one, there is no such thing as "the end" there was never a such thing as the creation, as universes must have been there before even our concept of the universe, even if the big bang were true, were there other "big bangs" before that? Thats not even brining god into question on this one. Because there is no way it can be tested, the Big Bang will also be a theory, and most scientists regard it as that, it just is, because thats the best we've got, since it makes some sense compared to other testable methods. I'm just content living here on poor ol' earth, plying my way through life, raising kids, and hoping that there are indeed powers that be, that will protect us. I'm not just enlightened enough to look into the skies and see the great complexity that lies in front of me.

[Andres]

Is this expansion slowing down and will it eventually stop or will it continue at the same pace for eternity/until the borders of this nothingness have been reached? Has this been measured? What methods did they use?

[PBI]

IIRC there are two main pieces of evidence in favour of the Big Bang theory:

* Galactic red shift of galaxies
* Cosmic microwave background

The red shift is the observation that the light observed from distant galaxies is shifted towards the red (low energy) end of the spectrum. This effect is analogous to the Doppler shift observed with sound, e.g. if a car is driving away from you, the sound it makes is at a lower pitch than if it is driving towards you. The fact that the light is red-shifted is evidence that the galaxies are moving away from us at great speed. Specifically, the more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us. The implication of this observation is that the galaxies are all moving outwards from some central point.

The cosmic microwave background refers to the observation that we observe a roughly constant level of microwave radiation everwhere in space; this observation is consistent with the prediction of residual radiation from the Big Bang; the amount by which this radiation has been red-shifted is the main piece of evidence used to estimate the age of the universe in the Big Bang theory (thought to be roughly 14 billion years).

As for whether the universe will continue to increase, I am no expert but I think this is not known for certain. The two important factors are the mass of the universe and its rate of expansion; for a heavy universe, the force of gravity will eventually overcome the expansion and it will collapse; for a light universe, it will continue expanding forever.

The rate of expansion is easy enough to measure, since it is related to the same red-shift observations I mentioned earlier. The hard bit is estimating the mass of the universe, especially since the bulk of the mass seems to be made up of so-called "dark matter" and "dark energy", which cannot be observed directly but whose presence must be inferred from the behaviour of nearby galaxies.


I admit I am not a cosmologist but I must say I was not aware of any known theory which explains these observations better than the Big Bang hypothesis. If anyone can suggest or link to one I would be interested to read it.

I am a little confused by those suggesting that the theory cannot be tested; the Big Bang theory makes predictions about observable quantities, which we can then look for. If we find them (e.g. the CMB) it is evidence in favour of the theory, if we do not, it disproves the theory. What other method of testing is there?

[Sigurd]

Is this expansion slowing down and will it eventually stop or will it continue at the same pace for eternity/until the borders of this nothingness have been reached? Has this been measured? What methods did they use?

This is the thing Andres... depending on where you measure the speed might vary.
It is called an expansion, but many have the wrong idea about what this expansion is all about. Some have used the analogy of the ant on a balloon which is inflating. The ant does not perceive the motion. Every object it has contact with on this balloon is stationary. They don't move. Yet every day it takes longer to travel to X even though X claims he never moved.

Teachers are teaching wrong things if they say that the Galaxies move trough space at such and such speed. It is the universe surrounding it which expands thus “creating” more space between the stationary objects. This expansion has relative speeds as I mentioned. The formula used to determine the speed other galaxies moves away from us is v = Hd where v is the recession velocity and d is the distance from us. H is the Hubble constant.
A galaxy depending on the distance from us moves say: 1000 m/s and another double the distance away moves away at a speed of 2000 m/s. Another factor called the Hubble distance says that stellar bodies beyond the distance of 14 billion light years move away from us at speeds above that of the speed of light.
The way I understand it, it is space itself that is expanding and not the stellar bodies flying away from us in space. And Viking’s empty space outside the universe is his own thoughts. The expansion theory makes it clear it is not so.

[Viking]

And Viking’s empty space outside the universe is his own thoughts. The expansion theory makes it clear it is not so.

I didn't say that there is any space outside the universe; I stated that there is nothing; as a response to if the universe has an end. Nothing as in no time, no matter, no energy = nothing, it doesn't exist; not as in vacuum, which is something.

[PBI]

The way I understand it, it is space itself that is expanding and not the stellar bodies flying away from us in space.

Yes, sorry, this is what I meant. I should have said that galaxies appear to be moving away at great speed.

[Viking]

This is the thing Andres... depending on where you measure the speed might vary.
It is called an expansion, but many have the wrong idea about what this expansion is all about. Some have used the analogy of the ant on a balloon which is inflating. The ant does not perceive the motion. Every object it has contact with on this balloon is stationary. They don't move. Yet every day it takes longer to travel to X even though X claims he never moved.

At the same time, galaxies do move relative to each other. E.g. the Milky Way might collide with the Andromeda galaxy in three billion years; and at the same time the Milky Way is moving towards the Great Attractor at a great speed.

[CountArach]

I don't know enough, and never will, to make a truly informed opinoin; however I am willing to go along with the vast majority of physicists who do believe that the Universe was created in such a way.

So yes, absolutely I believe in it.

[Ironside]

Well, this is the science forum, so I don't understand what God is doing here

I for one, must admit that I don't know too much about this Big Bang theory.

What made scientists come to this conclusion?

Is the universe, according to scientists, still expanding after the big bang?

Which tools/methods do scientists use to measure this?

Sigurd is covering the red-shift pretty well and this explains most of your questions. In principle the lightwaves themself streches out with expanding space.
The biggest proof of Big-Bang instead of an evergrowing universe is the backround radiation. Basically when the universe was created it was very hot and then after cooling down to about 3000Kelvin, the universe stopped being a plasma (everything is ionized) and became transparent, creating the first light that could travel some distance. With time the wavelength has been stretched out into the form we see today on about 3K (the universe has then becamed about 1000 larger since then).

A plasma isn't tranparent because the photons will be immidiatly absorbed and then released again in a plasma, this is why the sun looks massive for example.

Will the universe one day, start getting smaller again? I mean, will it implode, only to explode (a new big bang) once again? Is it possible that there is a gigantic perpetuum mobile of imploding/exploding (Big Bang) of the universe?

As for the momment it seems that the universe is expanding faster and faster (this is observed with fairly high certaincy), driven by the dark energy (that's basically "if we put a number into this equation, then the equation will follow what we see"), that scientists have no idea what it is. Simply put as it is now it basically says that the more vacuum that's created the more energy that will push all objects away from eachother will exist.

As you can guess don't be surprised if that field ends up completly rewritten within a few decades.

According to scientists, does the universe stop? Is there a limit? Is that limit all planets, rocks, stars, whatever is floating around and beyond that, there is just space, with nothing in it?

Short answer: None got any idea.
Longer answer: The Universe is the boundry of our physical laws and also time as we percive it so it's pretty hard to say what's outside, or if outside actually can exist.

I'm intrigued by black holes, but I must admit that I don't know very much about them.

Short note, it's an area in space where the gravity is so strong that things needs to travel faster than light to escape the gravity (at this point matter as we know it is destroyed and what is then left is unknown). It can be of any size, but quantum mechanics tells us that the very small ones will vaporize very quckly by the Hawking radiation.

[cmacq]

Again, what does this dubious big bang thiny and god have in common, other than Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Eduard Lemaitre?

[Moros]

About the size of the universe. I believe could say this:
imagine that the whole universe only consisted out of you (and that you for one reason simply would be able to survive), then the size of the universe would exactly be your bodies size. Let's say you walk (I don't know how you did it but you walked) a bit. The universe still remains as big, it doesn't grow, as you had nothing to move away from. You could say the universe moved with you. However if the universe only consisted out of us two. And you would walk away from me, the universe did expand, cause you had something to move away from. Because your position changed relatively from something else.
However if we wouldn't be able to see each other, and have nothing to relatively orientate us on. Now If I'd walk away from you, did you move? You could say you moved further from the middle of the universe. And I wouldn't even have noticed I moved. Nor did you for that matter.
Now you see it easily gets complicated. even with just the two of us. (And none of us is even female!). Now consider the fact that our universe contains an uncountable amount of 'objects', that space, nor time is linear and that everything is relative. Things become complicated, and it's hard to tell what is moving, what is not. How fast is this moving? How big is the universe?

[cmacq]

So then...

is that the natural, moral, or metaphysical aspect of quantum mechanics?

[Papewaio]

Actually as theories go the Big Bang (its sensationalist name after the fact) is fairly simple compared with say Gravity (Special Relativity) and Schrodingers equation (oh the joys of finding the 0 points on a tripal integral of sodium in a magnetic field... I still can remember the agony if not the how).

Anyhow the thing is to this theory is that not only was energy and matter created so was time. Time is a physical entity just like energy and matter... there is no time before the universe, it is a property of this universe.

Some of the other things that the 'Big Bang' Theory help us determine is the amount of neutrons to protons (decay rates), why there is so much hydrogen vs other elements.

And combine the 'Big Bang' Theory with what we know about star formation (main sequence stars and others particularly the giants) and creation of elements beyond carbon and then beyond iron it gives us information to the ratios of other elements. These then can tell us that our star is a third generation star (at least) because of elements with a proton number more then iron.

[cmacq]

Well then,

if time is indeed a physical entity...

...what are time's physical attributes?

[Moros]

what's the physical attributes of space?

You could compare time as a sort of space. you can move in it, and it can be bend. The problem lies in the way we look at time, the way we percieve it. Could you imagine a 4D world with an extra dimension in space? No, because you are too used to your 3D world. It's the same with time, we're too used to our perception of time.
But just as there could be a universe with 4 dimensions in space, there you could as well have a universe without time. Why should there be time? Because you're used to the fact that there is time? Just as you're used to the fact that there's 3 dimensions in space, or that there's space? Space and time are nothing more and nothing less than properties of universe.

Also Time and space is very much connected, interwoven, what's the word?

Or to use a dull scifi quote: "free your mind". Cause that's usually the problem with this kind of stuff. It's hard to imagine such abstract things.

[cmacq]

what's the physical attributes of space?

You could compare time as a sort of space. you can move in it, and it can be bend. The problem lies in the way we look at time, the way we percieve it. Could you imagine a 4D world with an extra dimension in space? No, because you are too used to your 3D world. It's the same with time, we're too used to our perception of time.
But just as there could be a universe with 4 dimensions in space, there you could as well have a universe without time. Why should there be time? Because you're used to the fact that there is time? Just as you're used to the fact that there's 3 dimensions in space, or that there's space? Space and time are nothing more and nothing less than properties of universe.

Also Time and space is very much connected, interwoven, what's the word?

Or to use a dull scifi quote: "free your mind". Cause that's usually the problem with this kind of stuff. It's hard to imagine such abstract things.

Actually, the question was not about space, it was directed at Papewaio's statement that 'Time is a physical entity just like energy and matter'...

Yet, as you say...

the problem with describing the physical attributes of time is, it's we humans that imagine such as an abstract. It is not that time has physical attributes, per se. Rather it is a process, that humans perceive within a relative context. If one changes the context, ones perception of the process is thus altered.

As we perceive it, time has no physical attributes, as a process that represents change, or in a greater context the interaction of energy and mass. Simply put, it is = in the mass–energy equivalence statement. Still, I'm very sure that I'm so incorrect.

One of my dull quotes: "a mind too free, is bound to wander."

Returning to the big bang, I've yet to see any argument that adequately supports it?