But what created that more powerful entity? Something had to poof out of nothing else we would not be here. |
|
Ok, im putting this question out, and going to bed, and when i get back i am sure that all you Big Bang Gang Bangers will be all over this thread. I see a dilemma when people that tell us in our classrooms and televisions, that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but they can only change forms. |
|
"La bellezza del paessa di Galilei!"
But what created that more powerful entity? Something had to poof out of nothing else we would not be here. |
|
Last edited by Black_Eagle; 09-17-2009 at 04:03 AM.
Surrender your flesh. We demand it.
The big bang doesn't say that matter came out of nowhere. It just says the the universe as we recognize it began as a singularity. The conventional wisdom is that quantum fluctuation was responsible for the event but quantum mechanics doesn't include gravity and the scales we are talking about small so that quantum effects have to be taken into account. General Relativity (which predicts gravity) only goes to just after the big bang before it breaks down. |
|
Last edited by PhilosopherStoned; 09-17-2009 at 04:14 AM.
Previously PhilosopherStoned
Even if you could create matter out of nothing, that wouldn't explain how matter could spontaneously appear out of no where. |
|
I never understand why people say "this can't have happened out of nothing ... but something far more powerful could have!" |
|
No they don't. Nobody knows what happened at the beggining. All the Big Bang theory says that we can trace our universe back through time to a point where it was a singularity. That's not nothing. |
|
Last edited by Bonsay; 09-17-2009 at 12:07 PM.
I think the main problem with the "matter couldn't have come from nowhere" criticism of the Big Bang theory has to do with our perspective as humans. We only know so much about the state of the universe before space/time were "created". I may be behind the times, but I don't think science has completely reached a consensus on what (if anything) was actually before the Big Bang, so we are left with the cliffhanger notion that "there was nothing." |
|
Dream Journal: Dreamwalker Chronicles Latest Entry: 01/02/2016 - "Hallway to Haven" (Lucid)(Or see the very best of my journal entries @ dreamwalkerchronicles.blogspot)
Funny you mentioned white holes, I discussed that in school an hour ago. |
|
The wise ones fashioned speech with their thought, sifting it as grain is sifted through a sieve. ~ Buddha
Well people can see the universe is spreading outwards from a central point, and make an educated guess that everything started in the center then went outwards. |
|
This is the problem i have with the "infinite causes theory" for lack of a better term. Yes, I agree that everything, in this universe, must have a cause. But, assuming that there was a creator that caused the universe into existence, the laws of the creation do not necessarily affect the actions of the creator. For the sake of argument i am going to assume that there is a creator of the universe. If he created everything around us, everything we see and do not see, and one of those foundational principles of the universe is that everything must have a cause, it still does not mean that the creator is affected by it. Creator > Creation. So therefore the creator does not necessarily need to have something that caused it to come into existence. He/She/It is not subject to the laws of his/her/its own creation |
|
"La bellezza del paessa di Galilei!"
Matter cannot be created or destroyed inside our universe. Energy existed with our universe as it came into being, a part of the package deal. It wasn't created after the fact. |
|
It's almost ironic that the creationist stance, |
|
Last edited by Invader; 09-17-2009 at 09:27 PM.
Invader, noöne said that the universe came out of nothing. As far as our knowledge of physics goes, in the beginning, there was a singularity in which space-time and all of the energy in the universe was condensed almost infinity small. The big bang theory deals with what happens just afterward; the sudden expansion of space-time. You see, the big bang is not an explosion into a preëxisting space, it is the expansion of that space out of a singularity. The entire universe was the singularity. There was nothing else in which anything could be said to have existed. |
|
Sure. There is no way to say what was before the big bang or if it even makes sense to talk about a 'before' the big bang. So the best that we can say is that the universe as we know it began as a singularity and that guess is very well supported by observations. The quantum fluctuations would have been happening within the initial singularity. They answer the questions about what caused the singularity to not be a singularity anymore. This is possible because all the mass-energy of the universe, was compressed, along with the universe itself, to quantum scales so the whole thing was subject to quantum indeterminacy. So it could have found itself where the mass-energy was diffuse enough for some effect to cause further expansion. This is all happening 10^-12 seconds after the big bang and earlier. After that, known physics can pretty much handle it. |
|
Previously PhilosopherStoned
@ A Roxxor |
|
Last edited by Invader; 09-18-2009 at 12:14 AM.
The Big Bang is an observation. How many times... |
|
Except for the fact that the universe "flying apart" is only a theory... |
|
"La bellezza del paessa di Galilei!"
I love how people say "there must be a creator" just because they don't understand something. It's as ignorant as we used to be seeing something in the sky and saying it's one of the gods in the sky (like Zeus or whatever). Looking back at our history, we were SO GOD DAMN IGNORANT! not that it was really our fault...but we still were. Hell, even today so many people are absolutly ignorant, even science people if you can believe that. The past has not showed so many people that some things at this time of age can't be fully explained yet. |
|
We don't know much about singularities because, by definition, a singularity is where math breaks down. Where a curve intersects itself is called a singularity if you are doing algebraic geometry. Where a coordinate transformation has all partial derivatives equal to zero is a singularity if you're doing differential geometry. Where something goes to infinity is a singularity pretty much no matter what you're doing. |
|
Last edited by PhilosopherStoned; 09-18-2009 at 01:44 AM.
Previously PhilosopherStoned
The universe has a cause. What that is is uncertain. We do know the events that immediately followed, however. Saying the universe came from nothing is just as unsupported as saying that the universe came from a greater being. |
|
Ok first of all, thanks for the insult, jerk. Second of all, I never said that I am automatically right, that guy is putting words in my mouth. I confess, my knowledge of physics and the universe is proportionate to the size of a handful of mud in the gulf of Thailand. But I do know that something cannot be made out of nothing. It is impossible. I don't fully deny and reject the theory that the universe is possibly expanding from a single point. It could be true, it could not be true, but i have not seen enough evidence to justify that theory. |
|
"La bellezza del paessa di Galilei!"
Bookmarks