Is the Big Bang theory true

[The_Doc_Man]

On the bottom of the first page of posts there is a link to an interesting article. It is in line with many things said in this thread.

The bit about Newton and Gravity being true or not is in fact a problem found in nearly every branch of science. It is the problem of macro vs. micro behavior. The problem that different kinds of statistics drive processes at different levels. Newtonian gravity works perfectly well for objects moving at non-relativistic speeds, which covers a pretty wide range of speeds. However, when things start moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light then the Lorenz-Fitzgerald equations (and others) become corrections or worse.

The same is true of nuclear vs chemical reactions. They are apples and oranges because different forces are involved. I would offer a corrected version of something that was said earlier. Nuclear reactions involve pathways at energies not available to chemical reactions. So to say that chemistry breaks down with nuclear reactions is wrong. They don't overlap, don't apply, don't cause each other to fail.

As to how I feel about the Big Bang, I'm in doubt about the current theory but not in doubt about some violent event causing the eddies and whorls that lead to planetary accretion in our solar system. The BB has holes in it (see that post on page 1, near the bottom), but the concept of something violent isn't eliminated.

Given the choice of a "God" theory or a "natural violent event" theory, I'm still in favor of a natural event.

 

[Adam Caramon]

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but while I have always been interested in science and theories as to how the world began or early origins and such, I have sort of come up with one of my own. I realize that this theory is probably not truly original, and I don't assume my theory is more valid than scientific evidence, obviously. However:

When we think of the beginning of time or the beginning or the universe or earth, it seems we always think of this big amount of black space or void, then something occurs, and then there is a universe or some type of universal material or substance.

I ask you, however, to name me one thing you have ever seen that came from absolutely nothing? There is no such thing.

There was a study many years ago where a researcher laid out a piece of meat and then after so much time he observed it and found it was rotting and it had attracted maggots. Some people said it was spontaneous generation (i.e. the maggots were created out of thin air). However, once we were able to closer observe what actually happened this theory was discredited.

This research showed us that in this case something can not come from nothing. And I suspect that that always holds true. Something can not be created from nothing.

Therefore, getting back to my original point, couldn't some planet or some aspect of the universe simply have always been in existance?

As I said before, it will be very interesting to see the mysteries of the world solved through science, but I wonder if we are missing something starting off with the assumption that at one point nothing at all existed.

Adam

 

[Rabbie]

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but while I have always been interested in science and theories as to how the world began or early origins and such, I have sort of come up with one of my own. I realize that this theory is probably not truly original, and I don't assume my theory is more valid than scientific evidence, obviously. However:

When we think of the beginning of time or the beginning or the universe or earth, it seems we always think of this big amount of black space or void, then something occurs, and then there is a universe or some type of universal material or substance.

I ask you, however, to name me one thing you have ever seen that came from absolutely nothing? There is no such thing.

There was a study many years ago where a researcher laid out a piece of meat and then after so much time he observed it and found it was rotting and it had attracted maggots. Some people said it was spontaneous generation (i.e. the maggots were created out of thin air). However, once we were able to closer observe what actually happened this theory was discredited.

This research showed us that in this case something can not come from nothing. And I suspect that that always holds true. Something can not be created from nothing.

Therefore, getting back to my original point, couldn't some planet or some aspect of the universe simply have always been in existance?

As I said before, it will be very interesting to see the mysteries of the world solved through science, but I wonder if we are missing something starting off with the assumption that at one point nothing at all existed.

Adam

Adam, The Big Bang theory does not say that Something was created out of Nothing. It states that the "bang" occurred in a very dense ball of matter approximately 1 light year across. Where this matter came from we just don't know. There are several ideas about this but we don't know.

Einstein's equations state there is an equivalence between Mass and Energy(E = MC squared) where c is the speed of light so that might also be an explanation.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Adam, The Big Bang theory does not say that Something was created out of Nothing.

Not Big Bang theory in particular, that's why I warned I might be getting off topic. But in general, a skeptics answer to the Big Bang theory might be "Where did the matter come from?" "And where did that come from", etc.

If you follow these type of questions back to their source it seems like in general we are expecting that at one point that there was absolutely nothing.

Adam

 

[Rabbie]

Not Big Bang theory in particular, that's why I warned I might be getting off topic. But in general, a skeptics answer to the Big Bang theory might be "Where did the matter come from?" "And where did that come from", etc.

If you follow these type of questions back to their source it seems like in general we are expecting that at one point that there was absolutely nothing.

Adam

The simple answer is that we do not know and according to some eminent scientists cannot know what happened before the Big Bang. The same type of arguments can be applied to creationist theories as well. "Where did god come from? etc etc.

It may well be that the universe in some form or other has always been here but there is no way we can find out.

If in fact the "Steady State" Universe theory is correct that calls for the spontaneous creation of Hydrogen atoms at a very slow rate to allow for the already observed expansion of the universe.

So it seems that all creation theories, both religious and scientific, call for something out of nothing.

 

[JessicaBrown]

interesting topic

 

[speakers_86]

Newtonian gravity works perfectly well for objects moving at non-relativistic speeds, which covers a pretty wide range of speeds. However, when things start moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light then the Lorenz-Fitzgerald equations (and others) become corrections or worse.

Your talking about the search for the theory of everything. This is what Einstein was trying to solve before he died. A theory that works on any scale, large or small. Here is a great video on string theory in laymans. It is 3 hours, but broken into short clips.

So to say that chemistry breaks down with nuclear reactions is wrong.

Agreed. I had objections when I read that earlier in the thread, but I think I ignored it.

As to how I feel about the Big Bang, I'm in doubt about the current theory but not in doubt about some violent event causing the eddies and whorls that lead to planetary accretion in our solar system.

Agreed. I was taught the big bang was originally a singularity that basically exploded (space exploded, not the matter). The singularity part is one of my issues with it. I do not like the idea of infinity. I believe that infinity is only applicable in mathematics or in theory, not in nature. Since I would like a theory that does not involve infinity, it is especially hard for me to find one that seems suitable. This infinity problem raises what I think is an interesting question. Pi is an irrational number. The number is infinitely long. However, if you where to unravel a circle and measure the circumference, the circle has a definite end. How can pi possibly go on forever in reality? I'll have to google this sometime.

The BB has holes in it (see that post on page 1, near the bottom), but the concept of something violent isn't eliminated.

Given the choice of a "God" theory or a "natural violent event" theory, I'm still in favor of a natural event.

Agreed.

 

[Rabbie]

This infinity problem raises what I think is an interesting question. Pi is an irrational number. The number is infinitely long. However, if you where to unravel a circle and measure the circumference, the circle has a definite end. How can pi possibly go on forever in reality? I'll have to google this sometime.

THis is similar to the value of 1/9 expressed as a decimal fraction which is as I am sure you know 0.1111111111111111111 and on and on for as long as you like.

There are many irrational numbers which can't be written. ANother good example where we can draw a line of that exact length but still can't express it as an exact fraction is the square root of 2. It is the length of the diagonal of a square with sides 1 unit in length.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Pi is an irrational number. The number is infinitely long. However, if you where to unravel a circle and measure the circumference, the circle has a definite end. How can pi possibly go on forever in reality? I'll have to google this sometime.

Pi is only able to go on forever because it's a concept *derived* from the properties of circles, described using our common system of mathematics.

It's not some constant that's written down somewhere in the declarations for the universe - or else it would need infinite storage space to hold the definition. There isn't any place where it actually is written "LET pi = 3.14159265...."

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Well, actually the problem with pi (and with e, Euler's constant) is that we try to express them when in fact we don't need to unless we are trying to convert from a theoretical and symbolic exercise to a specific numeric one. The problem is always in representation, not in the value itself.

For instance, if you switch to a numbering system based on SQRT(2) then the size of that diagonal of a 1x1 square is 1. But now the sides AREN'T 1.

The problem about expressing 1/9 (= .11111111111....1111111 in base 10) is trivial in base 9. So maybe.... 10 isn't the best numerical base to use?

When I was in grad school taking some quantum chemistry courses, we learned that we could exactly describe atoms but make it a diatomic molecule and we were screwed. Except for one case... if it was a homogenous diatomic molecule, we could make the math come out trivially if we stopped using spherical coordinates and started using confocal symmetric elliptical coordinates. (Yeah, I nearly barfed on that one the first time I heard about it, too...)

Our problem with ALL of this might well be that when we go to build the models, we are choosing a coordinate system that is convenient for our minds but not native to the process we are representing. As a matter of fact, I didn't get that idea myself. I got it from a Prof. Erde, who graciously visited the Univ. of New Orleans campus once to visit his friend, Prof. Herzberger. Prof. Erde gave a guest lecture that was bloody fascinating, mostly centered on issues such as poor choices of models because we don't know any better. And he points out that thanks to the Euler relationships, we learn that, given that e is a transcendental number and pi is a transcendental number,

e^(i*pi) = 1

Which is, of course, so totally counter-intuitive as to make no sense at all. Hey, if Prof. Erde was content to say that, I can live with it too.

 

[Rick Stanich]

Science can only theorize on the Big Bang, mainly because science can not see far enough into space. As of this year we can only see 15 billion light years from Earth, beyond that science has no idea of whats out there.

15 billion light years! Hows that for making one (us) seem insignificant.

According to the Discovery Channel (and YouTube) space is infinite, there is no end, but if there is, then what is surrounding space?

I really should stop watching vids on youtube.

 

[speakers_86]

According to the Discovery Channel (and YouTube) space is infinite, there is no end, but if there is, then what is surrounding space?

This is not a fact, but I am not disputing it (infinite, grrr!).

I read about a theory called hologram theory that says the four dimensions we are so familiar with is actually an illusion. All information in the universe is actually contained on the edge of the universe. The dimensions we experience is more like a hologram. What is even more interesting, is that the GEO 600 has been experiencing background noise, and one of the founders of hologram theory predicted (without knowledge of the noise) that there should be noise.

The down flaw of this is that if this is true, then gravity waves are not detectable, and projects like GEO 600, LIGO, and future project LISA are in vein.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

According to the Discovery Channel (and YouTube) space is infinite, there is no end, but if there is, then what is surrounding space?

It's possible for something to be both finite and boundless - a bit difficult to get ones head around, perhaps, but if you've ever played a video game such as the classic Asteroids - where the screen 'wraps' - and going off one side brings you back on the other, then you've seen the concept.

Space could be warped in such a way that it is finite in size, but has no edges - no boundaries between itself and anything else, and therefore no need for any 'outside'.

Another example is the moebius strip - you can make one of these -

take a ribbon of paper, loop it around and join it back to itself (like a bracelet) - you have something that has two sides, two edges and no end.

But if you put a single twist in the ribbon before joining it, you have something that has no end, but also, only has one side and one edge - common sense tells us that a sheet of paper must have two sides, yet here is a shape without an 'other side'.

 

[Pauldohert]

A moebius strip is surrounded by something though.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

A moebius strip is surrounded by something though.

Yes, but that's just because it's an analogy - it doesn't mean our universe has to be surrounded by something, or that there even is anywhere for something surrounding our universe to be.

In the example of the moebius strip, you have a piece of paper that has two sides and make it into a shape with only one side - the side that doesn't exist is possibly analogous to the outside of our universe - maybe there just isn't one.

'Beyond the boundary of the universe' might be equivalent to 'North of the North Pole' - i.e. not referring to a place that is difficult to get to, or is empty, but a place that does not exist at all.

 

[Pauldohert]

Not a very good analogy then.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

No analogy is ever perfect - by definition.

The concept is there, if you try a little harder - and it is that the discipline of topology permits the notion of things with no outside.

 

[andrewmoquin]

The Big Bang is finding more scientists in disagreement because the evidence is turning against it. Like many old paradigms, it still has its zealous adherents. But more scientists (not only creation scientists but secular cosmologists as well) are seeing data which does not fit it well. So, the direction in science is not towards the Big Bang but away from it - or at least, there is an acknowledgment that it doesn't fit some of the latest data. Of course the failure of the Big Bang to explain all the data will not lead to a rush toward creationism or intelligent design. The Big Bang theory itself will be drastically revised or it will be abandoned in favor of another theory which also fits with the long-age evolutionary paradigm.

 

[Mile-O]

Is the Big Bang theory corrrect?

It reads as if you are misappropriating the term theory. While a theory can be seen to be an assumption, in science it's a different term altogether and is a deduction based on logic and testing.

Or, from the US National Academy of Sciences:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.​

 

[voidcranium]

I hate to break up your intellectual discussion, but the title of this thread answers the question.
"Is the Big Bang theory true"
Theories can't be proved - hence the word "THEORY"
Therefore; a Theory must NOT be true.


from - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

Origin:
1590–1600; < LL theōria < Gk theōría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to theōr(eîn) to view + -ia -y 3

Synonyms:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

A theory is either true of false once it is tested. Until then it is just someones opinion.
Creationism is based on FAITH not science, it can't be proved to be true either.