Do You Accept The Big Bang Theory?

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

---------- Post added June-26th-2012 at 07:20 PM ----------

[/color]

What? Why?

Finite heat, in a infinite expanding universe eventually everything will go cold cause not enough heat to go everywhere.

[PeterMP]

Finite heat, in a infinite expanding universe eventually everything will go cold cause not enough heat to go everywhere.

Assuming the universe is a closed system, in the very long term, does it matter if its expanding?

Order is going to go to 0.

[Pskins]

Assuming the universe is a closed system, in the very long term, does it matter if its expanding?

Entropy is going to go to 0.

I heard an interesting theory on Science channel that when all matter is used up in fusion reactions the universe

will go cold again. BUT the theory is that the remaining black holes will continue to devour whatever cross their paths and that

eventually matter will revert to it's simplest form hydrogen. When that happens the process starts all over again, atoms attracting to each other etc etc, fusion starts etc etc.

[PeterMP]

I heard an interesting theory on Science channel that when all matter is used up in fusion reactions the universe

will go cold again. BUT the theory is that the remaining black holes will continue to devour whatever cross their paths and that

eventually matter will revert to it's simplest form hydrogen. When that happens the process starts all over again, atoms attracting to each other etc etc, fusion starts etc etc.

I don't think H is really the simpliest form of matter. It has an electron and a proton, which are made up of other particles.

H also isn't particularly dense (black holes being extremely dense) so creating H in a super dense conditions doesn't make much sense to me either.

[mistertim]

Also, at a certain point all matter would be so spread out that the black holes would have little to nothing to "feed" on for incredibly long stretches of time meaning even with the biggest black holes Hawking radiation will eventually win and they will evaporate.

[grhqofb5]

Yes, fairly certain its true. Have no idea why, but know that Brian Billick accepts it so its probably a good bet.

[PokerPacker]

Assuming the universe is a closed system, in the very long term, does it matter if its expanding?

Entropy is going to go to 0.

doesn't that conflict with the second law of thermodynamics? Were they oversimplifying when they taught us that there is no process in which entropy of a closed system is reduced?

[Hubbs]

I don't say no because of religious reasons, I say no because of logical reasons.

My current understanding of the Big Bang Theory is that all energy and matter in the entire ****ing universe just kind of exploded out of a single point in space one day for no particular reason. I find that to be an entirely uncompelling story. Yes, there are quite a few scientists who will say that it's impossible for my brain to even conceive of such an event, because after all before the Big Bang time "didn't exist". My response to that is to say that time may not have existed as part of the infinitely convoluted mathematical formulas that are put together to describe the edges of our understanding of physics, but on a more fundamental level time is nothing more than cause leading to effect according to the laws of physics, and we try to measure how quickly cause leads to effect in units of something we call "time" because that's how we've chosen to describe this process. There isn't a mathematical model on Earth that can convince me that all of our known existence can just randomly appear one day, with no cause, because of course our formulas tell us that hundreds of billions of stars and planets and molecules and types of life can all pop into existence out of nothing and the only reason this happened is because a fundamental property of nothing is to suddenly create an entire universe of something, even if "virtual particles" exist.

I realize that this sounds very much like a stepping stone to arguing why you should believe in whichever religion I believe in. It's not. I just think that we've got a long way to go in explaining and describing the universe, and current theories are full of a lot more questions than answers. I have no idea whether or not those answers will be similar to anyone's religion.

[afkidd]

What? Why?

something about thermodynamic reactions not being able to occur because heat is spread evenly between the universe, therefore no motion can happen.

i don't really understand it, but i read it once in one of my wiki benders. look up heat death of the universe or big freeze on wiki.

[DallasCowboyFan156]

Sure, but where did all the material come from prior to the big boom?

Until the unanswered questions of the universe are answered, I won't rule anything out.

Lawrence Krauss has come up with a very interesting explanation to this question. Whether or not you accept it or not will depend upon what your definition of nothing is. Basically, Krauss has proven that it is possible for something to come from nothing if nothing is defined as a quantum vacuum. If nothing else I suggest you take a look at this lecture he gave on the subject. If you're a religious person you may have to wade through some mild bashing of religion but the science is interesting enough that it's worth a look:

[skinsfan07]

Forgive me for not following along, but it sounds like this is your argument:

Nothing existed, then nothing exploded into everything?

That's where you're wrong, nothing "exploded", before there was anything, the universe as we know it was in a stagnant state, but somehow, it got to the perfect state and perfect heat and combusted and started expanding, slowly, but did expand, 14 billion years ago, hence the reason the universe is still expanding now. There was no explosion.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Was looking at some online universe scales and I started thinking about how amazing the universe really is. So I pose you all this question, based on all the evidence supporting the BBT, do you accept it? Or do you believe that something else created all of this?

False dichotomy in the question itself, the two ideas of BBT and creator are not mutually exclusive to one another.

---------- Post added June-27th-2012 at 07:26 AM ----------

Yeah maybe one of those stone age fairy tales actually got it right. Better be on the safe side about these things.

You're right, you don't think we're arrogant and unethical, you think we're morons.

[PeterMP]

doesn't that conflict with the second law of thermodynamics? Were they oversimplifying when they taught us that there is no process in which entropy of a closed system is reduced?

I messed up. Order is going to go to 0.

---------- Post added June-27th-2012 at 08:07 AM ----------

Also, at a certain point all matter would be so spread out that the black holes would have little to nothing to "feed" on for incredibly long stretches of time meaning even with the biggest black holes Hawking radiation will eventually win and they will evaporate.

Doesn't this assume that the universe continues to expand.

Doesn't that depend on what the cosmological constant actually is and what it actually represents?

---------- Post added June-27th-2012 at 08:12 AM ----------

That's where you're wrong, nothing "exploded", before there was anything, the universe as we know it was in a stagnant state, but somehow, it got to the perfect state and perfect heat and combusted and started expanding, slowly, but did expand, 14 billion years ago, hence the reason the universe is still expanding now. There was no explosion.

As far as I know nobody suggests that there was any combustion.

Casually people refer to rapid expansions due to extreme heat an explosion.

---------- Post added June-27th-2012 at 08:15 AM ----------

I don't say no because of religious reasons, I say no because of logical reasons.

My current understanding of the Big Bang Theory is that all energy and matter in the entire ****ing universe just kind of exploded out of a single point in space one day for no particular reason. I find that to be an entirely uncompelling story. Yes, there are quite a few scientists who will say that it's impossible for my brain to even conceive of such an event, because after all before the Big Bang time "didn't exist". My response to that is to say that time may not have existed as part of the infinitely convoluted mathematical formulas that are put together to describe the edges of our understanding of physics, but on a more fundamental level time is nothing more than cause leading to effect according to the laws of physics, and we try to measure how quickly cause leads to effect in units of something we call "time" because that's how we've chosen to describe this process. There isn't a mathematical model on Earth that can convince me that all of our known existence can just randomly appear one day, with no cause, because of course our formulas tell us that hundreds of billions of stars and planets and molecules and types of life can all pop into existence out of nothing and the only reason this happened is because a fundamental property of nothing is to suddenly create an entire universe of something, even if "virtual particles" exist.

I realize that this sounds very much like a stepping stone to arguing why you should believe in whichever religion I believe in. It's not. I just think that we've got a long way to go in explaining and describing the universe, and current theories are full of a lot more questions than answers. I have no idea whether or not those answers will be similar to anyone's religion.

Big Bang Theory is explantion of how the Universe started.

In of to itself, It isn't an explanation for why the Big Bang happened.

(i.e. randomly with no cause)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Big Bang Theory is explantion of how the Universe started.

In of to itself, It isn't an explanation for why the Big Bang happened.

(i.e. randomly with no cause)

Exactly, BBT is the theory of how this universe started. As for the multi-verse theory, the tv show nailed it,

Leonard: At least I didn't have to invent 26 dimensions just to make the math come out.

[gbear]

How can we go 5 pages with no mention of "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov? I understand all of the references to a funny TV show, but I like Asimov's version better. http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

In seriousness, my question on the assumptions of the big bang have more to do with the rational involving thermodynamics. We tend to believe that which is testable, that heat/matter is constant. Heat Lost = heat gained. Energy is constant, except we know we can create energy from matter. I think this is from where the icy universe end point theory comes.

Why do we assume there is only heat and matter which have to be equal across different time periods? What if there is another variable in there? Conceptually, this is probably a small variable because we can demonstrate heat lost = heat gained using a coefficient of heating and get reasonably accurate predictable results. What if these results are only as accurate as using Newtons laws to measure how fast an object dropped at a height of 3 meters will be moving right before it hits the ground? Newton's laws are good, but they don't hold up well on the cellular level.

What if there is a different dimensionality needed to explain galactic properties. I know I am using "dimension" wrongly as people may think this means alternate universe. I mean it only as looking at it from a different scale leading to a very different, almost unrecognizably different picture. I hold some hope the different perspective might lead to insights on both ends of our timeline.

[mistertim]

Doesn't this assume that the universe continues to expand.

Doesn't that depend on what the cosmological constant actually is and what it actually represents?

Yes on both counts. However, I was simply assuming a universe that continues to expand and certain properties for the cosmological constant since the poster I was responding, who was talking about black holes eventually being the only thing left and continuing to take in matter at a rate of individual atoms, was assuming that in his/her post. I was responding to the point/question about the black holes in that specific future, not to the assumptions that theory and poster was making about how it got to that state or how probable it was.

[chaught76]

I say no based on the following:

First the meaning/definition of an explosion (definition taken from a google definitions search):

1.A violent and destructive shattering or blowing apart of something, as is caused by a bomb.

2.A violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward as a shock wave.

and Second, this question (based on my understand of what an explosion is defined as):

What proven examples exist of something naturally exploding and creating something of use or improved value?

[pointyfootball]

and Second, this question (based on my understand of what an explosion is defined as):

What proven examples exist of something naturally exploding and creating something of use or improved value?

[DaGoonie55]

My astronomy professor went into detail on this subject. The BBT is an amazingly complex and sexy theory which has a substantial amount of evidence to support it. The thing is, we may never know what was before the BB. Science can only prove what it can observe, and you cannot observe nothingness. There must be some radiant energy for our detectors to detect - light, heat, something. Nothing emits nothing. We cannot see what was there. Interestingly enough, he admits that it a quantum "fart" is equally as plausible for the cause as God igniting the void. I appreciated his candor and openness.

Brilliant discussion, this, I love these posts.

HAIL!!!

[PeterMP]

I say no based on the following:

First the meaning/definition of an explosion (definition taken from a google definitions search):

1.A violent and destructive shattering or blowing apart of something, as is caused by a bomb.

2.A violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward as a shock wave.

and Second, this question (based on my understand of what an explosion is defined as):

What proven examples exist of something naturally exploding and creating something of use or improved value?

What makes you think the universe has more value now?

[Hitman21ST]

That's where you're wrong, nothing "exploded", before there was anything, the universe as we know it was in a stagnant state, but somehow, it got to the perfect state and perfect heat and combusted and started expanding, slowly, but did expand, 14 billion years ago, hence the reason the universe is still expanding now. There was no explosion.

So how did it get to that state?

[alexey]

You're right, you don't think we're arrogant and unethical, you think we're morons.

I have a lot of respect for you and for very necessary and important work that you do. It is very unfortunate that our relationship is the way it is right now.

I do not believe in God and you do. That is a big difference, in principle, but not that important of a difference in practice. I am pretty sure that when it comes to actual real world situations, we will be on the same page vast majority of the time. And if we disagree, we will be able to discuss and explain our positions with respect and civility.

Now, I do have some concerns about religion. I think those concerns are reasonable, and I am pretty sure that you would agree with at least some of them. I am sure that you have some concerns about lack of religion as well, and I think some of those concerns are also reasonable. There is no secular version of a weekly get-together of neighbors, for example. There is no established secular framework for forming and reinforcing community ties, or for deep meaningful spirituality. Those are important, necessary things, and for many of them religion is currently the only game in town.

I understand that my language can sometimes be a little harsh and my positions can seem arrogant or inconsiderate. There is obviously a lot of work that I can do to try and improve my way of discussing these things. I know that I mean well, for whatever that's worth. Still, I think that there is no God, that there is no soul, there is no afterlife, that there is no loving caring something looking out for us, and that nobody ever actually walked on water or raised people from the dead. There are some implications of that position - for example, I disagree with people who think differently about these things. I think that's OK. Hopefully we can still get along.

People can believe whatever they like, right? So let's talk about actions. I think that we ought to focus more on sustainable economic development, be much more careful about the environment, take a much greater concern about human rights all over the world, focus more resources on medicine rather than war, effective education, supporting marriage, preventing divorce rather than preventing gay marriage, working against hunger, ensuring that women have access to contraception, and so on. I am concerned that these kinds of issues are not sufficiently championed in our nation and by our nation around the world. People who believe in God comprise a very strong political faction in our country, but I am not seeing a strong push from that faction for things that I consider very important. Not different beliefs but different resulting actions are the main source of my concerns.

[skinsfan07]

So how did it get to that state?

now that, you're asking the wrong guy. No idea. But the Universe IS ever expanding and that is a fact.

[The 12th Commandment]

Queue Peter coming in to correct me, but the way I figure it, our dabbling into the workings of the universe, at the Big Bang scale, are not based on much more knowledge than faith in a higher being. A little bit more but not that much. The difference is that our looking into the Big Bang will lead to more facts being uncovered eventually, while faith doesn't lead to anything except more faith.

[alexey]

Queue Peter coming in to correct me, but the way I figure it, our dabbling into the workings of the universe, at the Big Bang scale, are not based on much more knowledge than faith in a higher being. A little bit more but not that much. The difference is that our looking into the Big Bang will lead to more facts being uncovered eventually, while faith doesn't lead to anything except more faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

Cosmic background radiation is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe.

...

The cosmic microwave background radiation and the cosmological redshift are together regarded as the best available evidence for the Big Bang theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_redshift

It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.