Why do you believe in the Big Bang? - Page 2

Ljube · February 3, 2004, 15:29

Actually, cosmic background radiation is no proof of Big Bang - it can easily be explained in the Steady State Theory which I consider a lot more plausible than Big Bang.

You see people, to believe in Big Bang is to believe in God, for if an entire universe can come into existence from nothing and since this event has never happened again, then this single event, this creation of Universe, this Big Bang must be God's will and work.

Az · February 3, 2004, 15:52

"Believe" in the big bang? I don't believe IN it, I believe it to be the best theory of the events that created the universe that I know of.

My Wife Hates CIV · February 3, 2004, 15:59

'You see people, to believe in Big Bang is to believe in God, for if an entire universe can come into existence from nothing and since this event has never happened again, then this single event, this creation of Universe, this Big Bang must be God's will and work.'

who said the big bang was the start of it all??? perhaps the bigbang is just somewhere in the middle of a larger process. who said it's never happened before??? maybe many bigbangs have happened in the past. maybe there are several areas right now that are the results of a big bang.

'cosmic background radiation is no proof of Big Bang '

?????

where have you been. this discovery pretty much got everyone thinking the big bang holds more water than anything else.

'Steady State Theory' ?!? ahahahaha buy an updated text book my friend - you're a bit behind the times.

Barinthus · February 3, 2004, 16:01

Quote:

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV
who said the big bang was the start of it all??? perhaps the bigbang is just somewhere in the middle of a larger process. who said it's never happened before??? maybe many bigbangs have happened in the past. maybe there are several areas right now that are the results of a big bang.

It has happened 6 times before, this is 7th time around *nodding sagely*

Jack the Bodiless · February 3, 2004, 16:06

The Baryon-Asymmetry problem, though a mystery, doesn't really qualify as evidence that there was no "Big Bang".

It seems to me that the Big Bang is a good theory primarily due to Occam's Razor: it's the simplest theory that accounts for the observed evidence. Consider the number of ad-hoc theories that would be necessary to replace it:

1. Some other means of accounting for the redshift of distant galaxies. Light gets tired?

2. Some other means of accounting for the 3-degree background radiation.

3. Some other means of accounting for why the stars are still shining: why they haven't consumed all the free hydrogen in the Universe.

4. Some other way of accounting for the different "populations" of stars: those that apparently condensed from pure hydrogen, and those (like our Sun) which contain supernova debris from earlier stars and are therefore rich in heavier elements. IIRC, distant "young" galaxies (they were young when their light started its journey to us) contain more of the former.

Elok · February 3, 2004, 16:18

I second all those who said they do not "believe in" the Big Bang. A belief is something you live, not something you think. The universe may have begun as an explosion of matter from a small point of infinite density; I store that as a funfact in the back of my head and am done with it. My awareness or lack of awareness of the origins of reality only affects my life insofar as I allow it to upset me. 'Course, I think the same thing about evolution, but that's a little closer to home so I can understand how it gets people upset.

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 3, 2004, 16:38

I'm pretty sure the prevailing thought by the mega minds at present there will be no big crunch.

Matter of fact universe is supposed to expand until such times as all black holes shed all mass and universe approaches a zero energy state.

That being said, it would be hard to fathom that if this holds true the bang-crunch cycle is valid for previous incarnations of the universe.

Something else is going on that we have yet to discover.

Guynemer · February 3, 2004, 16:41

I really couldn't be arsed to care about the Big Bang one way or another.

I've got quite enough problems as is without contemplating the origins of the universe, thank you very much.

Solly · February 3, 2004, 18:18

It's nothing I really think about, but I would put it down as the most plausible suggestion that we currently have.

Nevertheless, I realise there are a lot of things wrong with mainstream science at the moment (ie, how it treats consciousness as an irrelevant phenomenon) so I don't have a 100% faith in it.

Starchild · February 3, 2004, 19:12

This is why I'm studying biochemistry. Physicists are in danger of being theologians with charts.

Drogue · February 3, 2004, 19:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Starchild
Physicists are in danger of being theologians with charts.

It's quote's like that that are the reason we all love the Starchild

debeest · February 3, 2004, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
But what happened to all the anti-matter? The theories all tell us that anti-matter must have been produced in equal amounts - so where did it go?

I think no one has explained where the antimatter is. But they have addressed the question, and there is one relevant and I think irrefutable answer.

I forget the name of the concept -- the anthropic principle, maybe? -- but it applies to this and many other aspects of science.

Basically, humans could only exist in a universe, and on a planet, that are like the universe and planet we have. If laws of nature were different, we just wouldn't be here to observe them. Maybe something else would be observing them, but not it couldn't be us.

If the antimatter were in our portion of space, mixing with matter, it would all be exploding. Therefore, no people.

The universe is still largely unexplored. According to at least some modern theory, it's unbelievably large -- so much bigger than they thought 50 years ago, that our known universe wouldn't even show up on a map of it. Plenty of room to find antimatter somewhere.

Provost Harrison · February 3, 2004, 19:33

I only give attention to the formation of the earth and life upon it. Anything before then is not really in my area...but the Big Bang theory seems to be the most feasible and well backed up of most.

debeest · February 3, 2004, 19:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Stephen Hawking is a case in point I think. The guy is a pretty decent physicist I think, but there a lot of smarter kids on the block (so to speak). We never get to hear about the other guys because they aren't so 'weird' - the media focusses on SH and make him into some kind of supergenious just because of his disability. Star Trek even had him playing chess with Einstein -- pleeeease!

(That must really piss off Ed Witten, who most physicists think is the smartest kid on the block...)

I don't think that most physicists would agree on that last point, though I'm sure many would. But I think most physicists would agree that Steven Hawking is among the few most important modern physicists, and not because the media focus on him more than they should. He may not be a supergenius, but he's added more to modern physical thinking than most.

Kuciwalker · February 3, 2004, 19:42

I think some people have missed something - the bing bang is NOT the creation of the Universe. Prior to the big bang, the universe existed, but all of the dimensions were really, really small.

Rogan Josh · February 3, 2004, 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The Baryon-Asymmetry problem, though a mystery, doesn't really qualify as evidence that there was no "Big Bang".

It seems to me that the Big Bang is a good theory primarily due to Occam's Razor: it's the simplest theory that accounts for the observed evidence. Consider the number of ad-hoc theories that would be necessary to replace it:

1. Some other means of accounting for the redshift of distant galaxies. Light gets tired?

2. Some other means of accounting for the 3-degree background radiation.

3. Some other means of accounting for why the stars are still shining: why they haven't consumed all the free hydrogen in the Universe.

4. Some other way of accounting for the different "populations" of stars: those that apparently condensed from pure hydrogen, and those (like our Sun) which contain supernova debris from earlier stars and are therefore rich in heavier elements. IIRC, distant "young" galaxies (they were young when their light started its journey to us) contain more of the former.

These could all very well be explained by an oscillating universe. Most of these in fact are not consequences of the Big Bang at all - they are consequences of an expanding, cooling universe.

Of course there is the `big problem' that recent observations now show that distant galaxies are accelerating away from us

debeest · February 3, 2004, 19:47

I find this thread fascinating because of the nature of the responses. There was another thread that questioned religion, and I suspect that the original question was an attempt to support religion vs. science by mimicking that thread. I would have expected a degree of emotional argumentation.

But the responses have been illuminating. Some of them cited some of the good evidence for the Big Bang theory. But virtually everyone has said, "I recognize it as a theory, and like all theories it may be imperfect, and it's likely to change as we learn more."

To me, that seems to sum up the difference between science and religion (as someone above did point out). Science is a system in which belief is based on evidence, and subject to change based on further evidence or understanding. Religion is a system in which belief just happens -- no evidence required -- and therefore is not readily subject to change based on evidence.

That's why science and religion have often clashed. Not because the Copernican theory or the theory of evolution proved religion wrong (since it's not that hard for most religious people to accommodate to those realities), but because the very nature of science -- openness to change based on evidence -- conflicts with the core tenet of faith itself.

Kuciwalker · February 3, 2004, 19:47

Quote:

These could all very well be explained by an oscillating universe. Most of these in fact are not consequences of the Big Bang at all - they are consequences of an expanding, cooling universe.

And an expanding universe can be easily explained by a Big Bang.

Rogan Josh · February 3, 2004, 19:48

Quote:

Originally posted by debeest
But I think most physicists would agree that Steven Hawking is among the few most important modern physicists, and not because the media focus on him more than they should.

I disagree with that. (Depends what you mean by 'few' of course, but I could list at least 50 modern particle physicists and astronomers who have had more impact.)

Rogan Josh · February 3, 2004, 19:57

Quote:

Originally posted by debeest
To me, that seems to sum up the difference between science and religion (as someone above did point out).

To me it seems to show that people will believe whatever it is fashionable to believe, irrespective of what is actually the truth.

Vesayen · February 3, 2004, 20:05

I believe that the universe runs by natural law and was PROBOABLY not created by a diety, other theories make more sense then the big bang, but since none of them have proof... wait for more conclusive evidence. The big bang just has too many holes on it, though I want to be clear that is NOT an endorsement of a diety, just means "we dont know".

The Andy-Man · February 3, 2004, 20:26

maybe the universe is a large sphere that is going round very, VERY quickly (much faster then light for example), and therefore creates a centrifugal force sucking everything out to th rim, qiving he appearance of a centeral bang.

pesonally, i dislike big bang theories, because in physics we were always told eenergy out = energy in or something, thus, where di the input come for such a large explosion that turned nothign into everything.

3rdly, if the bang has something to do with photons, where did they come from with no source of light/energy?

Vesayen · February 3, 2004, 20:30

well photons dont have a mass, so of course they dont need a source, DUHHH!!!!

The biggest problem I have with the big bang, "well this thing happened, and it started everything else!", well where did THAT come from? Even those without a backround in science should see this problem.

The Andy-Man · February 3, 2004, 20:36

it is true that phtons don't have a mass, but i don't think they just 'apeared' either. I was led to beleive they needed heat...

Vesayen · February 3, 2004, 20:39

We dont know exactly what makes them(conflicting theories), but everything we know about the universe points to cause = effect, and effect means there was a cause, for this to suddenly stop unravels everything else we know.

The Andy-Man · February 3, 2004, 20:51

I see, maybe there was no cause, and consequently no effect and we just percieve things wrong

Kuciwalker · February 3, 2004, 21:06

Causality is inherently unprovable - we have to "take it on faith". The difference between it and religion is that assuming causality is necessary to function.

cinch · February 3, 2004, 21:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

To me it seems to show that people will believe whatever it is fashionable to believe, irrespective of what is actually the truth.

That's strange, because a lot of people here have said that they don't BELIEVE in the big bang theory, they just think part of it makes sense for particular reasons... but they're open to change upon new evidence.

So really, I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from. I see no one here ardently defending the Big Bang as the asbolute truth.

molly bloom · February 3, 2004, 21:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

To me it seems to show that people will believe whatever it is fashionable to believe, irrespective of what is actually the truth.

'What is truth?'-

the wholly babble.

Is it that Mohammed is the messenger of god?

None but Christadelphians can be saved?

The General Conference of the Seventh Day Adventists is the highest authority that god has on earth?

The world is flat? (various religions)

The world is hollow? (various religions)

At Armageddon all of the earth shall be wiped out save the Jehovah's Witnesses?

There is no salvation outside the Church of the Latter Day Saints?

Only the Lord of the Second Advent, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon will be powerful enough to complete the restoration of man to god?

The Roman Church has never erred, nor ever will to all eternity?

Of course, I doubt that anyone will be burnt at the stake, stoned to death, beheaded or crucified for doubting the Big Bang Theory- one saving grace of science over religious belief.

Ben Kenobi · February 3, 2004, 21:49

Quote:

To me, that seems to sum up the difference between science and religion (as someone above did point out). Science is a system in which belief is based on evidence, and subject to change based on further evidence or understanding. Religion is a system in which belief just happens -- no evidence required -- and therefore is not readily subject to change based on evidence.

That's why science and religion have often clashed. Not because the Copernican theory or the theory of evolution proved religion wrong (since it's not that hard for most religious people to accommodate to those realities), but because the very nature of science -- openness to change based on evidence -- conflicts with the core tenet of faith itself.

Ask yourself these two questions. First, what forms of evidence are rendered admissible in the realm of science? Secondly, what forms of evidence are rendered admissible in the realm of theology? The answers to these questions are very very different. This is why most religious folks are less 'open' not because of closed mindedness, but rather, much different standards for evidence.