Is the big bang fact or fiction

Madelaine McMasters · August 20, 2012

Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

Phil Deakins wrote:

And many would be wrong. We don't have the scientific explanations at all. The best minds on the planet have found it impossible to do away with a 'creator' and still explain how the universe/matter exists at all, including the space for it to exist in. Remember, there was absolutely nothing - no space, no matter, nothing - and then there was something. Nobody has any concept of how that could have happened other than it was arbitrarily created by someone or something. The more you ponder "How come it exists?", the more you are forced towards the idea of 'it must have been created'. The idea that it existed, reaching infinitely back in time asks the same question - "How come?" - which leads to the same conclusion.

I wouldn't say that. Scientist may not have all the answers but certainly have many explanations and the overwhelming evidence is for the Big Bang theory. However, it is still a theory.

To say that nobody has any concept of how there was 'nothing' and then there was 'something' is not quite correct. Although unproven, the inflationary theory offers one possible answer for example and I like this explanation.

You have a vacuum with zero energy and zero mass. Quantum mechanics however says that entities are not exactly any number, not even exactly zero. So the amount of mass fluctuates around zero, with bits and particles fleeting into existence for the briefest of moments here and there with most flipping instantly back into nothingness. However, the bit of mass (or field of energy as mass and energy are equivalent) that started our universe came attached to an inflationery field and this field has an antigravitional force (negative energy) causing it to expand at an immense rate.

So, you have a huge field of negative energy coupled with the sudden appearance of greater than zero mass but mass and energy are equivalent so when added together you still have zero total mass and energy. If you add up all the energy and mass in the universe, it may still come to zero. So the question "How did something come from nothing?" ceases to be an issue because there is no 'something'. We live in a universe exactly equivalent to the 'nothing' that came before the Big Bang.

The "perversity" of explanations like this has always appealed to me. After reading Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" I did have the urge to yell out "You're all just making that up!". But, over the course of my life, I've had those "aha!" moments in which the beauty of the mathematics/physics underlying something I've observed becomes apparent to me.

So, while the math of 10/11 dimensional multiverse theory escapes me, I well understand the elation one feels when it reveals its beauty to those who understand it. If it turns out that these theories don't reveal anything about the observable universe and that experimentalists can't refute them, the practical engineer in me will understand those people who dismiss the theorizing as a waste of time. Meanwhile, I'll be thankful that we have time to waste, because we can't prove that wasting that time won't ultimately benefit us.

Play is serious business!

;-)

Phil Deakins · August 20, 2012

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

The "creation" argument is really looking for a sentient creator, possibily one that looks after us. I understand the comfort that ideology can bring to some, but it brings none to me, as I like to poke and prod and ponder and I see no evidence to support that ideology.

If you allow for the possibility that the dimensions of space and time we observe spring from some larger dimensional space we can't probe, then we're sorta stuck in a state of perpetual wonderment. Could it get any better than that?! ;-)

At the same time, you see no evidence against that ideoligy. What you also don't see is any alternative way that existance came to exist. (Existance includes such things as our universe springing from an existing multiverse, and some existing "larger dimensional space")

I see no alternative to existance having beed created. Even the 'always there' idea begs the question, "How come?", which in turn leads to the conclusion that it was created and not always there.

I've been careful not to suggest a sentient creator, to the extent of writing "someone or something" and such.

Madelaine McMasters · August 20, 2012

Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

Ceka Cianci wrote:

I think the thinking of something having to be intelligent to have made everything ..that comes from having to get so smart to understand it..once we see how long it took to get an understanding..well we start to think..this had to be from something intelligent..i mean look what had to happen just to understand it sorta..

so in a sense it could have just happened and be something that is some living breathing thing and we feel we have to justify it being something intelligent for it to exist..because it's so perfect..at least in our minds it is perfect..when really perfect could be the opposite of perfect and stuff is really just messed up and perfect is chaos..which really chaos is perfect and organized is not..i mean organized can only lead to becoming unorganized at some point..right? so really it's all just based on a hunch that things are in order..because order is something we invented..

Does science need a deity, an intelligence that created everything? Many would say no, we have the scientific explanations to dispel any notion of a deity. The universe runs perfectly for us using natural laws so why invoke some external being or source of power?

However, some use science to support the existence of a deity too. The universe we inhabit is so finely tuned for human life, it could be argued it was created for us. For example, even a minute change in the size of the weak force would make it impossible for hydrogen to form and that of course is necessary to fuel suns and form water. Also, the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism had a 1 in 10 to power of 40 (equation won't display) chance of being fixed in the exact ratio needed for stable suns to form. There are many other finely tuned parameters too.

So, is it pure coincicence that we live in a universe finely tuned for life where suns last long enough for planets to form that can sustain life with water in abundance or was it created especially for us? Could our universe be one of an infinite number of universes, a multiverse, so of course we end up in the universe that is finely tuned for us.

The idea of a steady state universe "The universe is quasi-static, infinite, and everlasting" is as difficult to get your head around as to what came before the 'Big Bang'. The universe has either been around forever or it began at some point in time.

Makes your head spin!

Multiverse theory neatly disposes of the argument that conditions for life are just too finely tuned to have produced us by accident. If there are an infinite number of universes, there's plenty of opportunity to stumble across the conditions that support everything we observe in our own. The fact that we happen to live in this universe guarantees we'll witness the astronomically unlikely possibility of our own existence.

Take two dramamine and enjoy the ride, Nyll!

Madelaine McMasters · August 20, 2012

Phil Deakins wrote:

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

The "creation" argument is really looking for a sentient creator, possibily one that looks after us. I understand the comfort that ideology can bring to some, but it brings none to me, as I like to poke and prod and ponder and I see no evidence to support that ideology.

If you allow for the possibility that the dimensions of space and time we observe spring from some larger dimensional space we can't probe, then we're sorta stuck in a state of perpetual wonderment. Could it get any better than that?! ;-)

At the same time, you see no evidence against that ideoligy. What you also don't see is any alternative way that existance came to exist. (Existance includes such things as our universe springing from an

existing

multiverse

,

and

some existing

"larger dimensional space")

I see no alternative to existance having beed created. Even the 'always there' idea begs the question, "How come?", which in turn leads to the conclusion that it was created and not always there.

I've been careful not to suggest a sentient creator, to the extent of writing "someone or something" and such.

Well, we can't prove negatives, so I don't try. I can actually imagine endless alternative ways we might have come into existence, but the religious (and perhaps the string/brane/multiverse theorists ;-) are so good at it that I feel woefully outclassed.

And just because a question goes around begging doesn't mean I'm gonna make up an answer for it. I have no problem with admitting I don't know. And this has seemed to be the dividing line between me and my faithful friends. They need to know "why" right now. I can wait.

Dillon Levenque · August 20, 2012

Binoculars and a small telescope are as far as I ever advanced as well, but just those give me a chance to learn a lot and see a lot. It's not all math and physics, although clearly to be able to wander the halls of some of the hypotheses of today you need plenty of both. I settle for reading and wondering about those topics. There are other ways to enjoy the night sky.

See the moons of Jupiter and imagine the storm of excitement they induced in Galileo's mind. I've actually seen one of them with my 50mm binocs but a little larger telescope works better. I was also moved to read 'The Starry Messenger': his short explanation of what he'd seen and what he thought it demonstrated. A four hundred year old rational scientific discussion in a time when such things were virtually unknown.

Learn the constellations. I know that has nothing whatever to do with astronomy but it's still almost a requirement since even the most scholarly comments will quite often refer to something as being 'in the constellation Virgo' without any other information, so if you don't know where that is or when it's best viewed from where you are you're reduced to finding stuff in the star charts. Besides, it's a lot of fun when the 'dots' finally connect and you do recognize a constellation. Not only that, just learning about the Big Dipper and Polaris will let you find your direction at night (here in the Northern Hemisphere, anyway)—that might be very useful.

See the Rings of Saturn. I did once, in my back yard with the 90mm. Saturn was in a rather close conjuction and tipped at a very good viewing angle. Even though I couldn't really see colors or definition—it just looked like a bright gold construct, really—it was an amazing sight.

Those are just a few things and I really got off topic. Regarding that: several people have offered rebuttals, NOT that there is any requirement whatsoever that they do so: as VRProfessor (first, I think) suggested: the burden of proof or plausibility is on the theorist. That would be the be the OP. It's not up to 'the scientific community' to disprove your theory. It is up to you to demonstrate to 'the scientific community' that it has plausiblity.

ps: I've had several conversations with Madelaine and I'm not at all sure I'd be willing to wait out four words a minute. Ten, maybe.

Phil Deakins · August 20, 2012

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Well, we can't prove negatives, so I don't try. I can actually imagine endless alternative ways we might have come into existence, but the religious (and perhaps the string/brane/multiverse theorists ;-) are so good at it that I feel woefully outclassed.

And just because a question goes around begging doesn't mean I'm gonna make up an answer for it. I have no problem with admitting I don't know. And this has seemed to be the dividing line between me and my faithful friends. They need to know "why" right now. I can wait.

Nothing can be proved either way, of course, but I'd be interested to hear some of your alternative ways that existance might have come to happen - alternatives to that it was created, that is. I can only imagine one alternative - that it was always there - but I can't believe that because of the question, "How come?"

I suspect that the reluctance among many to acknowledge that the universe might have a creator is simply that they prefer it not to be the case.

Phil Deakins · August 20, 2012

You inadvertantly highlighted the main reason why I'm not drawn to putting time and money into astronomy. That is, with relatively low cost equipment (I don't mean cheap), there's not a lot to see and, once you've seen them all, then what? - other than spending more money on better equipment.

I prefer to read, so I buy books. Madelaine mentioned Brian Greene. I haven't read the book she mentioned but I have his follow-up book - "The Fabric Of The Cosmos". I found a real gem (for me) in that one, which, to me, is much better than seeing Saturn's rings, for instance. He said that everything, including you and me, is in motion at the speed of light. The speed I travel through space, plus the speed of my personal time, adds up to the speed of light. A real gem. So, the quicker I move through space, the slower my time clock ticks, and vice versa. It really helps me to get a grasp of personal time.

A conclusion I drew from it is that, from a photon of light's point of view, there is no time, and it is simultaneously everywhere it will ever be. I like that

Madelaine McMasters · August 20, 2012

Phil Deakins wrote:

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Well, we can't prove negatives, so I don't try. I can actually imagine endless alternative ways we might have come into existence, but the religious (and perhaps the string/brane/multiverse theorists ;-) are so good at it that I feel woefully outclassed.

And just because a question goes around begging doesn't mean I'm gonna make up an answer for it. I have no problem with admitting I don't know. And this has seemed to be the dividing line between me and my faithful friends. They need to know "why" right now. I can wait.

Nothing can be proved either way, of course, but I'd be interested to hear some of your alternative ways that existance might have come to happen - alternatives to that it was created, that is. I can only imagine one alternative - that it was always there - but I can't believe that because of the question, "How come?"

I suspect that the reluctance among many to acknowledge that the universe might have a creator is simply that they prefer it not to be the case.

While it may be that we ultimately can't prove the presence or absence of creation, science doesn't really care, does it? It simply seeks to find the truth, as revealed by nature. Science is done by people who may care about such things, but the overall messy process seems to be able to make progress even so.

One might make a case for people having an interest in refuting creators that take an active role in daily human life, and can therefore be used as instruments of coercion (my God is the one true God, so I can rightfully take your stuff), but I can't see a reason for people to expend tremendous energy railing against the idea that our universe might have been "created" as a random result of physical laws we've not yet understood.

Whether something always existed or simply popped out of nowhere is the sort of philosophical question best left to philosophers. I don't see a way to use the term "creator" without implying more than the evidence suggests... so far. It's not that I prefer a "creator" not to be the case, I think it's that most people prefer that "creator" be the case. I've seen more evidence to explain the latter than the former.

I believe Heisenberg was right about uncertainty. I've certainly got it ;-)

Nyll Bergbahn · August 20, 2012

Phil Deakins wrote:

Yes, what came before the Big Bang is meaningless. Even using the word 'before' is meaningless because it entails time, which also didn't exist. Stephen Hawking, a friend of Roger Penrose, said the same thing. The various theories you mentioned only apply to the realm of existance. It's meaningless to ask what it was like before existance. But we are talking about how existance came to exist. What happened after the universe came into existance is irrelevant. When the universe came into existance, it may have been comprised of only energy and contained in the tiniest point possible, but it was still the universe existing in dimensions.

We can't know anything about the nothingness when the universe didn't exist. We can't even imagine it, because it isn't anything to imagine. You are talking about the existing universe (inflation, Big Bang, multiverses, etc.), which necessarily means during the time it exists. I have no heartfelt disagreement with such theories, but they apply after the universe came into being and they don't even try to address whether or not it was created.

What it boils down is this. (1) the universe (or universes) always existed; i.e. existance always existed. Or (2) existance was created, and when it didn't exist there was absolute nothingness. In both cases the question arises "How come the universe exists?" and the answer must be a creator of some sort.

ETA: I just re-read your post and you do seem to accept that the universe was created. You said,

"when all of space and time was created in the Big Bang itself"

and "

Pre-big bang nothingness is absolute.

", which is something I've been saying here. You suggest that the universe was

created

at the Big Bang, so we appear to agree that the universe had a creator of some sort, which is what I've been saying.

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Right, there's no satisfying answer. But I'm not bothered by that. The questions alone are interesting enough.

The "creation" argument is really looking for a sentient creator, possibily one that looks after us. I understand the comfort that ideology can bring to some, but it brings none to me, as I like to poke and prod and ponder and I see no evidence to support that ideology.

If you allow for the possibility that the dimensions of space and time we observe spring from some larger dimensional space we can't probe, then we're sorta stuck in a state of perpetual wonderment. Could it get any better than that?! ;-)

_________________________________________________________________________________

Actually, Roger Penrose said that Phil and I just quoted it. I haven’t read

Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe,

published in 2010 on his theory called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology dealing with pre-Big Bang cosmology. The price has come down so maybe I’ll give it a whirl although it’s said to contain many equations so maybe not! :smileyvery-happy: After ages of expansion, Penrose argues, our universe will be reduced to the big bang for the next universe. According to Penrose, our universe is a bead in a necklace of universes, a necklace in which the death of each universe represents the birth of the next universe. The theory has been heavily criticised by all reviews I read saying it just doesn’t work. Far beyond me though. I’m not a physicist, just an interested amateur who happens to be attracted by the quantum fluctuation theory, which is not just after the Big Bang but its beginning from 'nothingness', a microscopic speck of excited vacuum that started the Big Bang.

You can debate on where the first quantum speck came from, personally I don’t see the need to invoke a deity, entity or whatever you choose to call it as its creator as you then have to answer the question of where that entity came from and you’re into infinite regression. I’m more aligned to Madelaine’s way of thinking and enjoy reading about all the theories and questions. Wish I could understand it all but when I attended a lecture by Kip Thorne and heard him say he said he was trying to understand one of Stephen Hawking's new theories, it made me feel a bit better! :smileyvery-happy:

Sometimes I just wander out under a clear night sky and gaze up wondering at the immense mystery of it all.

Nyll Bergbahn · August 20, 2012