Problem With the Big Bang Theory

[Tetronia]

Um, I was thinking, and I've found that there is a flaw in the Big Bang theory, which makes it a farce.

The Big Bang theory says that, out of nowhere, a speck smaller than a quark appeared. It got larger and larger-- then it exploded. When it exploded, space and time came into existence and were shot in all directions, and became our universe.
However, if time did not exist before the explosion, how could the spack appear and grow? It couldn't if time was not passing. Therefore, the Big Bang theory is a farce.

Comments? Questions? Waffles?

[jinydu]

Um, I was thinking, and I've found that there is a flaw in the Big Bang theory, which makes it a farce.

The Big Bang theory says that, out of nowhere, a speck smaller than a quark appeared. It got larger and larger-- then it exploded. When it exploded, space and time came into existence and were shot in all directions, and became our universe.
However, if time did not exist before the explosion, how could the spack appear and grow? It couldn't if time was not passing. Therefore, the Big Bang theory is a farce.

Comments? Questions? Waffles?

Err... Why does time need to exist before the explosion? Why can't time begin at the instant of the explosion?

[Tetronia]

^Because if time started at the instant of the explosion, then there would be no passing time to allow the ball to grow and explode first.

[jinydu]

^Because if time started at the instant of the explosion, then there would be no passing time to allow the ball to grow and explode first.

Huh? Grow and explode first? The instant the explosion occurs is the beginning of time. Nothing needs to happen before that.

[Tetronia]

^Yes, it does. The theory says that the ball appeared out of nowhere and began to grow. When it became about the size of a decillion suns, it exploded. If time started at the instant of the explosion, then how could the ball have appeared and growm to the size of a decillion suns? It's fairly easy to conceptualize.

[jinydu]

^Yes, it does. The theory says that the ball appeared out of nowhere and began to grow. When it became about the size of a decillion suns, it exploded. If time started at the instant of the explosion, then how could the ball have appeared and growm to the size of a decillion suns? It's fairly easy to conceptualize.

I think you're thinking about the theory of inflation. You've apparently misunderstood it.

The theory of inflation says that at around 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang, the size of the Universe suddently started to grow very fast (to be more precise, exponentially), much faster than before. This is the "explosion" you're thinking about. Note that this explosion happened after the Big Bang. The Universe started at the Big Bang, not at the moment of this "explosion". To recap:

Big Bang ---> Inflation -----> Today

(of course, I left out many intermediate stages).

[Tetronia]

^No, I am not talking about the theory of inflation. The Big Bang theory says that a quark-sized speck appeared from nothing and grew to the size of a decillion suns and then "exploded", even thought time wasn't passing as the speck grew, so tell me How in the omniverse could the speck grow if there was no time passing?

Why can't you understand me?

[jinydu]

That's not what the Big Bang Theory says.

The (conventional) Big Bang Theory says that an infinitessimal speck exploded at t = 0 and expanded into what is today the Universe. Time began at the moment of the infinitessimal speck exploding, which happened when the size of the universe was 0, not when it was the size of a "decillion suns".

I really have no idea where you get this "decillion suns" phrase from. If you mean "the radius of the universe was one decillion times the radius of the Sun", that would correspond to a radius of 6.96 * 10^41 m, or about 7.36 * 10^25 light years. That's MUCH MUCH larger than the current size of the observable Universe.

[Gilles]

I've allready uppered an alternative in the other topics...

[LiveWire]

Sorry, but I did a bit of research on your question and found that it didn't state it CREATED time. It said that time was pushed foward. But you may be right. After all, I'm just a kid.

[jinydu]

I've allready uppered an alternative in the other topics...

However, I've already shown that his idea has many serious flaws, and is given little credence among serious scientists.

[solodeath]

"In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing."
from: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ Copyright © 2002 - 2005Big-Bang-Theory.com, All Rights Reserved.


so from above, as you can see that time and space existed or started at the same time, not one after another. Thus in order to have ur big bang, there must be a time from t=0

[Exilon]

But in order for the spec to explode at t=0 then surely there must have been multiple variables that had caused the existance of this spec in the first place, which therefore would mean that t=0 isn't actually the start of time, also if the universe exploded and all that we see around us today was once stored in an infinitesimally small spec, surely the density and gravitational forces acting upon that object would have been so large that it would have collapsed upon itself? Although that's theory because those kind of variables can never be recreated.

[wendy]

There was no "explosion" at t0. It did not go up like dynamite does.

What happened is a relaxation of curvature. Space became ever less curved, while retaining the original arrangement.

In doing so, the angle around a point becomes more (ie less pleated), and because the transverse angles are essentially preserved, things become distant from each other.

So tightly is the relaxing of curvature over time, that for the first several minutes, there was no room for the weaker forces (like electroweak, gravity) to have effect, and the inertia carried the day.

At some later point, the relaxing of curvature started to break the larger blobs into lots of thing. That is, these were being pulled apart by the relaxation of curvature, faster than the forces could hold.

At the moment, the relaxation of curvature is not having an effect on things. It still goes on, but the effect is not to tear apart objects. What we see when a tearing apart happens, the objects are now held together by a glue that resists stretching: so stars now appear to receed from each other.

Space and time are not things that "always are". They are just properties of things. It is us who are in the habit of thinking of space/time as a backdrop for events, rather than parts of the events themselves. For a part this is a useful view: but when you look at large-scale things, don't always believe it.

[jinydu]

But in order for the spec to explode at t=0 then surely there must have been multiple variables that had caused the existance of this spec in the first place, which therefore would mean that t=0 isn't actually the start of time,

No, there were no variables "before" the Big Bang. Everything started at that instant.

also if the universe exploded and all that we see around us today was once stored in an infinitesimally small spec, surely the density and gravitational forces acting upon that object would have been so large that it would have collapsed upon itself? Although that's theory because those kind of variables can never be recreated.

That speck would have existed for only an infinitessimally small time, since the "explosion" occured immediately. However, if you really want to understand it correctly, these "no-math" explanations can only go so far. To really understand the Big Bang, you would need university-level studies in astronomy, general relativity, etc.

[sup2069]

God created the Universe as stated in the bible. The Big Bang Theory is nothing more than mans attempt at trying to explain the creation pf the Universe scientificaly/mathematicaly.

It's also the same when man tries to explain how humanbeings came about. Evolving from moneys and single-celled organisms is just pure nonsense. It may sound believable, but in truth God is the creator.

Im sorry that I derailed this thread with the talk about God but I couldnt resist.

[RQ]

I'd like to agree with you there, but unfortunately "technically" we did evolve from apes and single celled organisms. The exact path of the evolution from single celled to multicellular organisms is somewhat foggy to me, but as bacteria congregate eventually that became one organism, mostly sea sponges. After that there was an evolutionary boom about 500 million years ago where all sorts of sea creatures evolved very fast.

The question you should be asking is how life came to be out of nothing, which is tried to be explained by chemical evolution. Out of a simulated prelife Earth conditions by the Miller experiment I believe, there were tiny cell-like "things" created with all the characteristics of life such as a cell membrane and nucleus but yet non-living. They were called Protenoid microspheres.

If you wanna go about arguing this further you might have some ground on DNA as there's no real reason why it does what it does (Scientists know what happens, they just don't know why)

[wendy]

The evidence for evolution is quite strong.

One has to posit "parallel mutations" in order to circumvent the obvious conclusions. While it is true that "parallel mutations" exist, they exist in alternates. All of the ape/monkey family, except for humans, have a mutation to deal with an ancient "AIDS" like disease that affected the branch. Humans are as suspetabale to it, but they were not in africa when the thing went through. None the same, its either a genetic imunity or a retrovirus as solution, suspecting that two different solutions apply.

Humans share 97% of the genetic stream with monkeys. That's a lot of explaining if one does not posit humans and monkeys share common ancestors.

I suspect that the reason that we call our selves "homo-sapien" rather than anything else, is more because some folk can't cope with the notion that humans are part of nature, and derive from nature, and have a position in it. To call ourselves something like apus homos or something, might somehow tie us in with the animals. There is no sound scientific reason why it can't be the case.

We can quite happily put kitty and the tiger in the same family, but it seems that we want to deny our own position in god's creation.

[Chaos]

No offence, I believe this is a forum about tetraspace, not about Evolution vs. Creation. I suggest you take a look at Atheist Network for that.

Speaking on the Big Bang, everything is theory. I believe the Big Bang theory is almost correct, but not quite. There are still some problems, which is why someone created this topic in the first place.

No one knows how the singularity got there, or how long it had been there, but most believe it is the remainder of an older, failed universe that collapsed in on itself and was compressed down to a dot less than a billionth the size of a proton. Then, it blew up - not in a giant, fiery explosion; it simply started to expand at such an enormous speed that 10^-34 seconds after it started gravity emerged; a tiny interval later electromagnetism emerged as well as the weak and strong nuclear forces.

At this point the tiny, elementary particles that would soon form the elements emerged: photons, protons, neutrons, electrons and other stuff. Between 10^79 and 10^89 of each is the general estimation. They formed the basic elements: hydrogen, helium and a dash of lithium.

The universe continued to double in size every 10^-34 seconds, and some scientists say the whole inflation could have lasted just 10^-30 seconds.

That's the theory I read, and is pretty close to the truth in my opinion. There's no point arguing about why the singularity inflated because no one actually knows for sure...yet. There could be other universes...or there might not be.

Finally, it's natural but incorrect to picture the singularity as a tiny dot floating in a black or white void...there was nothing outside it. It was zero-dimensional.

[houserichichi]

You contradicted yourself...

most believe it is the remainder of an older, failed universe that collapsed in on itself and was compressed down to a dot less than a billionth the size of a proton

Finally, it's natural but incorrect to picture the singularity as a tiny dot floating in a black or white void...there was nothing outside it. It was zero-dimensional.

A zero-dimensional space would be infinitely small whereas your collapsed universe is not.

[Chaos]

Oh...sorry...

It can't have been zero-dimensional because then nothing could fit in it...I think...

[blupigan]

the big bang theory isnt a complete farce, it just tries to explain too much. when we try to explain the CREATION of the universe we are trying the impossible. how can there be a creation of everything? there cant be. everything has to have been here an infinitely long amount of time because for something to be created it has to come from something. matter cannot be created or destroyed. to say that the universe was created at any point is to watch a glass and wait for it to fill up with water on its own. here's is my theory, which after much deliberation i hold true. the big bang does and did happen, when all matter in the universe gravitates towards everything else there is a big ball, and the weight of that ball on the fabric of space time is so great, it squeezes and squeezes until it is as squeezed as it possible can be, and when all the matter that is pushing on the fabric of space time is all in one spot, the weight of this object would be the weight of everything, and if everything is in one spot then eveyrthing must be pulled to it, including the fabric of the unvierse. the universe collapses in on itself, once the fabric of the universe encompasses this super compressed ball it opens back up again, pulling everything out with it. this happens an infinite amount of times for an infinitely long time. its the universe, its everything. it cant be created. it has always been and always will. because if the universe was "created" where would it be created, it would have to have a point of creation, and if there is nothing then there is nowhere to place this point of creation.

now im not saying im right, im saying thats what i think and thats what believe, if anyone can de-bunk that then please do, i love to be corrected. without correction i cant learn, and thats what we're here to do.

by the way i use the quantum loop theory in my thinkings since that makes the most sense to me.

[jinydu]

the big bang theory isnt a complete farce, it just tries to explain too much. when we try to explain the CREATION of the universe we are trying the impossible. how can there be a creation of everything? there cant be. everything has to have been here an infinitely long amount of time because for something to be created it has to come from something.

Really? Why do you think that? Haven't you ever heard of "virtual particles"? http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics ... ticle.html

matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Sure it can. Nuclear reactions work by converting matter into other forms of energy. Perhaps you mean that matter-energy cannot be created or destroyed. But on a quantum scale, even this is not exactly right (see the link above).

to say that the universe was created at any point is to watch a glass and wait for it to fill up with water on its own. here's is my theory, which after much deliberation i hold true.

Well, science doesn't work that way. Scientific theories must lead to experimentally testable hypotheses. And theories don't just pop up out of simple deliberation. Instead, you start off with a collection of well-defined assumptions (called axioms, or postulates) and from there, further statements are derived rigorously and logically. Furthermore, just about all serious theories in physics (especially relativity and quantum mechanics, the two foundations of modern physics) rely heavily on mathematics.

the big bang does and did happen, when all matter in the universe gravitates towards everything else there is a big ball, and the weight of that ball on the fabric of space time is so great, it squeezes and squeezes until it is as squeezed as it possible can be, and when all the matter that is pushing on the fabric of space time is all in one spot, the weight of this object would be the weight of everything, and if everything is in one spot then eveyrthing must be pulled to it, including the fabric of the unvierse. the universe collapses in on itself, once the fabric of the universe encompasses this super compressed ball it opens back up again, pulling everything out with it. this happens an infinite amount of times for an infinitely long time.

As a matter of fact, this idea has already been proposed by professional physicists. The idea is something of what you stated: there is an infinite cycle of explosions (Big Bangs) and imposions (Big Crunches). I think there was even a name for it, but I don't quite remember what it was. While there's nothing that really rules it out completely, this idea is generally not accepted by almost all scientists because:

1) There is no known way to test for the existence of things before the most recent Big Bang.

2) The hypothesis predicts that the Universe will eventually stop expanding and contract again into a Big Crunch. However, observations over the past 7 years or so have proved to the satisfaction of most cosmologists that the universe's expansion is in fact speeding up. While this doesn't rule out the possibility that the Universe will eventually contract, it is certainly evidence against it.

3) The idea of an eternal and endlessly repeating Universe is inconsistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of the Universe increases over time.

its the universe, its everything. it cant be created. it has always been and always will.

Actually, this belief was held by Einstein, but it was a belief based not on scientific evidence (or else I wouldn't have called it a belief), but rather on the ideas of the man who Einstein admired most: a philosopher by the name of Spinoza.

because if the universe was "created" where would it be created, it would have to have a point of creation, and if there is nothing then there is nowhere to place this point of creation.

According to the current Big Bang Theory, spacetime began at the moment of the Big Bang. It doesn't make sense to talk about space or time before Big Bang, because there was nothing before it.

Sound strange? Then perhaps that should be a reason to study the (mathematical, not popular account of) Big Bang theory. Popularizers do make sincere efforts to explain theories without the mathematics, but ultimately, there's only so much you can do without the math.

now im not saying im right, im saying thats what i think and thats what believe, if anyone can de-bunk that then please do, i love to be corrected. without correction i cant learn, and thats what we're here to do.

by the way i use the quantum loop theory in my thinkings since that makes the most sense to me.

Quantum loop theory postulates that space and time are not discrete but quantized into Planck lengths and Planck times respectively. Currently, it is the leading alternative to string theory.

How did that figure into the rest of your post?

[zeppelin]

If you consider the multiverse then there doesn't have to be a "beginning." The multiverse has always been and will always be. Our universe is one of many.... just like bubbles, which seem to come out of nowhere and expand... like in a boiling pot of water.

In the beginning there was the quantum principle, which states that there must be uncertainty, so even Nothing became became unstable, and tiny particles of Something began to form.

So what you have is nothing begins to boil and tiny bubbles of something form and expand rapidly (Big Bangs).

This actually fits into religion quite well... able to unite the Judeo-Christian account of Genesis, which starts with a definite beginning, and Buddhist Nirvana, which starts with a timeless universe. Essentially we have Genesis taking place continually in Nirvana.