Big Bang or Never had a Begining.

May I ask what your beliefs are based on?

Scientists (the great majority of them) believe in the Big Bang based on quite a few observations. The Big Bang is supported by theories that are based on the results of many experiments. These theories have also made predictions that have been proven correct. No other theory has been able to do this. This is how an idea, like the Big Bang theory, gets widely accepted as valid by the scientific community.

For the record, your assertion that with a Big bang, nothing would hit anything else is simply incorrect. There are gravitational forces and explosions and other things that throw things all over the place.

The fact that galaxies collide does not contradict the Big Bang theory as the majority of scientists understand it. There is the possibility that your understanding of the Big Bang theory is different than that held by scientists.

Would you like to explain your idea and where it comes from?

What's to explain? In root concept, at least, the idea has been around since the early 18th Century - some argument may be made its origins predate even that by some considerable margin, but, as technology was as yet unequal to the task of providing pertinent data, none of that is particularly important. Early in the 20th Century, however, it was determined that, from the perspective of an Earth-bound observer, then-as-yet not entirely understood cosmologic objects were receeding from Earth at enormous velocity. At around the same time, Einstein developed the Theory of General Relativity, which, despite his fervent wishes and ardent efforts to the contrary, does not allow for a "Steady State" or "Eternally Constant" universe. Much intellectual energy, involving the best minds of the times, went into attempts to salvage the "Steady State" universe, but to no avail.

In the late 1920s, the first postulate describing what eventually has come to be known as "The Big Bang" was proposed by Lemaître, a Belgian cleric and accomplished, respected astronomer/physicist/theoretician, who largely, though not solely, developed the idea from Einstein's Theory of General Relativity with strong influence coming also from the work of Russian astronomer/physicist Freidman. Within a relatively short period of time, what is known as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker Metric provided an exact solution to Einstein's field equations of general relativity - though the solution allowed equally well for either a dynamic (expanding and/or contracting) universe or a static (Steady State) universe. Toward the end of the 1920s, the pace of discovery really began to accellerate, and Hubble's work all but put paid to "Steady State" theory - though at the time and for decades to follow, even Hubble himself sought desperately to prove otherwise.

In the late 1940's, Gamow (a driving force in the development of quantum theory, among others such as Fermi, Teller, Bethe, and Oppenheimer), Russian by birth but by then a naturalized US citizen, published an enormously influential paper decribing the observed levels and distribution of hydrogen and helium throughout the universe as being wholly consistent with circumstances which only could have been consequent to something very like the Big Bang. Gamow in that paper also predicted there should be a detectable, relatively uniform "afterglow" from the proposed Big Bang, in the form of infrared radiation a few degrees above Absolute Zero. Still, the "Big Bang"/"Steady State" debate went on; despite mounting evidence for, and the discovery of absolutely no evidence counter to The Big Bang Theory, Steady State had its staunch and well-credentialled champions.

In the mid 1960's, Penzias and Wilson's discovery of Cosmic Background Radiation confirmed Gamow's prediction; "Steady State" was dead, and Expansion was the deal. Over the past 4 decades or so, the case for the Big Bang/Expansion theory has grown exponentially, while, though open questions remain, no practical, feasible alternative has been presented. Discoveries and confirmations over just the few years yet accomplished in the 21st Century have served only to push remaining uncertainties into a steadily shrinking corner.

In the sense that a scientific theory is the functional equivalent of a repeatedly tested, constantly and ever-increasingly amplified and confirmed hypothesis consistent with all other relevant laws, principles, and theories, without substantive counter evidence, the Big Bang more than makes the cut. The math works, confirming the conclusions drawn from both physical and experimental observations, and the observations, physical and experimental, confirm the math.

In sum, and quite simply, there at present is no viable competition for The Big Bang Theory, and by all indication, it appears highly unlikely, to the point of near absolute statistical certainty, that ever will there be. The more it is studied and tested, the more we learn, the stronger The Big Bang Theory becomes.


Ellis, G and van Elst, H (1999): Cosmologic Models (note: 90 page .pdf download) provides a thorough and elegant (though not-really-for-the-layman) explanation of why The Big Bang Theory is the best currently available theory, and in what particulars it is superior to any prior, alternate or competing theory - in short, why and how it is the only theory which works.

Less scientifically precise but far more accessible is this Wikipedia article: History of the Big Bang

Wow! At least I decided to join the right website amongst the score or so available.

Two excellent replies within a couple of hours.

ebrown-p goes straight to the point. Belief is the ultimate rationalisation (not justification) of anyone's actions.

My belief is based on what I consider a logical point of view. I just cannot comprehend a beginning, although I accept that many others do and also that in many cases a large number of those that do maintain that to them it is a logical conclusion.

I can't accept that gravitational forces are an explaination of colliding galaxies. The weakest known force overcoming the ultimate driving force -Big Bang? And what are these "explosions and other things that throw things all over the place"?

Now I know that at this time the vast majority of observations are interpreted as indications that support Big Bang and again the vast majority of written works and treaties support BB, I thank Timberlandko for his (?) extensive list but Steady State does have some advocates, Bondi, Gold, Hoyle and Arp etc.

When all is said and done the strongest indications so far is the phenomena known as background radiation and the expanding recession limit of the seen/known universe. Can nether of you concede that other explanations for these could not be forthcoming in the future?

So there we are. I believe in a constant universe and that there is an overall balance between matter and energy. And the "element" (we don't have a word for it) that maintains that balance is time itself. The creation of matter out of nothing, it's time. The destruction of matter into energy, it's time. The decay of energy into nothing, it's time.

Thank you both for a warm welcome to Able2Know.

Eiadeo UK

The question you have to ask yourself is whether you are going to accept science as way to find "truth" or not.

The way you are justifying your beliefs is by trusting your intuition (what you feel is true). You say "I just can not comprehend a beginning" as the primary reason you don't accept the Big Bang.

Science has a big advantage going for it that many of us consider an important factor in how we make decisions. Science is a process that is based on evidence, measurements and mathematics. Science has a systematic method for resolving disputes that involuves a formal system of proof that is backed up by openness and peer review.

Although it is impossible to completely remove human frailty and emotion from any human endeavor, science comes damn close to doing just that. The fact that the work of each scientist is put out in the open for all to comment with an objective system of logic and mathematics for resolving any issues goes a long way to making sure that over time, we get what is pretty close to cold hard facts based only on evidence.

Science has abeen very sucessful from curing diseases, to letting us communicate over long distances. The people who invented the machines that you are using to read this message (from many miles away from where it was written) relied fundamentaly on science.

Of course it is undisputable that "truth" is a subjective term. You have the right to deny science as a whole, or to pick and choose any part of science to reject.

But there is a well defined body of scientific knowledge that has been built up over thousands of years and backed by science and mathematics.


Timber and I are simply pointing out that your conjectures contradict the scientific view of things.

Whether you accept the scientific view of things is up to you.

Eiadeo, I appreciate the subjective basis for your reserve regarding the BB. I too cannot imagine a cosmic beginning or end. But, of course, that says more about my mental and neurological make-up than it does about the material (observable) universe itself.
As I understand it, time, matter AND space all began with the BB. But there seems to have been energy (a form of matter?) that precipitated the BB. Where did that come from? And before the detectable beginning what was there? (the same can be asked about after the end). But these metaphysical concerns are mine (or reflect one of many conceptual possibilites of my species).

As I see it, the BB was the beginning of the universe as we know it, but it may be just one gesture of a much larger (and exotic) universe that we cannot (yet?) imagine. And did IT have a beginning, such as something we might want to refer to as an ABSOLUTE beginning, i.e., and which preceded our universe's beginning as well as that of all possible universes..
RIght now Paul Tillich's notion of the God Above God comes to mind.

Human beings have a big error in their understanding of time.

We all walk around in the basically the same frame of reference of all other humans... and because of this we grow up with the very erroneous assumption that our time is some kind of "universal time".

The idea that there is a "time" by which all the Universe (or our set of Universes if you postulate other Universes) runs is scientifically wrong-- plain and simple. I say that becuase experiments show that a Universal time is impossible to explain what we observe.

This is one of biggest errors that people make when trying to understand this stuff. It is a very persistant error (because we have never experienced anything else) and it is very difficult to overcome (but you must overcome it to understand modern Physics).

(Of course I understand (and you may point out) that science could be wrong about this and we have missed something that allows for a universal time.

But to people who have studied this stuff, the evidence is pretty compelling and, at least to me, the chance that humans have difficulty understanding because of a lack of the ability to experience this, is far more likely).

eb_p, you are probably right. I was just reporting what I read: that time (whatever its character) began with the Big Bang.
I never take issue with assertions regarding empirical matters that can be determined scientifically rather than intuitively or philosophically.

The big bang theory explains our expanding universe and from what point it originates. I do not think it gives us any knowledge on whether the universe has a "beginning" or not, for a beginning would imply an "ultimate first cause" or a "cause without a cause" which are troubling for our deterministic understanding of the universe.

From what I have read of the theory, scientists do not know exactly what is going on at t=0 of the big bang. I've read of a postulate that has the universe being in a cycle of expansion and collapse, resulting in the universe undergoing several big bangs. What credibility this postulate has I don't know, but it sounds interesting.

Ray, the expansion-collapse cycle model may have the attraction of a 'living" Cosmos which--in a sense--"breathes: inspiration followed by expiration, etc. etc.
But that's just a fantastic expression of the human tendency to anthropomorphize nature and thereby create a kinship with it.
But I do sense that I AM an aspect or expression of whatever that Great Cosmos is. No need to define it, otherwise.

One problem with the expanse-contraction cycle is that in order to have a "cycle" you need to have time.

The time in each Universe would be completely "orthagonal" meaning that there would be no way to compare a time in one Universe to a time in another.

Specifically there is no way to say which Universe was "before" the other Universe... or even if they both happened at the same "time". There is no time to make these comparisons.

This goes back to my point that the assumption there is some sort of absolute time is a very persistant mistake that human beings make.

E=m/c2
Energy is the game .... mass is a key player ie the larger the mass the more gravitational attraction is exerted upon neighboring bodies (masses) having an exponential (/c2) affect on the resulting mass's level of energy. When the mass reaches a level of energy (positive) that exceeds the level of energy (negative) in free space (time?) mass is critical (one notch above neutral) as a level of neutrality is sought the mass implodes (big bang) .... dumping all it's energy (mass) into another area of free space (time?). The process resumes, moving once again toward neutrality.

e_brown,

I am a laymen regarding modern physics, but couldn't this absolute time be relative to a static frame of reference if such a thing exists, or relative to the edge of the universe?

Anyways, I think that when people talk of a timeline of the universe, it is more of an order of events, thus we talk of beginnings or eternity.

Eiadeo

Welcome. You've definetly found the right place, and I suspect we're all better off for it.

The concept of a beginning is very interesting, and there have already been many interesting posts.

For my part, the big bang theory just raises another question.
Ok, something exploded. What exploded? The big bang is not the beginning. It is merely a hypothesized event of such magnitude that it can be called a beginning.

But I do not really believe that the logical and coherent understanding of the universe relies on events such as a beginning. It is something we deem neccesary because of our existence of beginnings and endings. It is a world humans create and sustain within 'objective reality'. As such it is obedient to our will, but only indirectly dependant on the actual spin of things. It might not mean anything...

Cyracuz, that sounds right to me. Knowledge and delusion (they overlap, of course) is a function of the knower.

Ray you have nailed the problem on the head by giving a possible solution (and then qualifying it very appropriately).

But lets procede down the path you have started.

Tell me what you mean by "static frame of reference". I know what the words mean (i.e. a frame of reference that isn't moving)... but I want to know (in a deeper way) what "not moving means".

How would someone know if they (or someone else) were in a static frame of reference?

If you can give me a "static frame of reference" that is somehow the "official" static frame of reference (i.e. somehow different than all of the other frames of reference) then you have a great definition of an absolute time.

If there is no static frame of reference, then we have a problem with any absolute time. Incidently (although it is a bit less clear) we have the same problem with defining the edge of the Universe. The edge of the Universe depends on your frame of reference.

Doesn't everything depend on your frame of reference? The only absolutes we have are abstract ideas, and even they are relative to our mindsets.

Time, in the conventional sense with past and future, I am not sure even exists. Problems and paradoxes surrounding this model should convince us to abandon the notion and seek clearer answers, but instead it inspires us to dream about timetravel and other impossibilities. How is it possible to cruise the moments of history when all of existence takes place in one single moment?

Wouldn't it be an error to inject a human factor (relativity) in an attempt to understand 'big bang'? A billion perceptions of an event would only add a billion explanations. E=mc2 has yet to be refuted.

Gelisgesti

If it is an error to introduce a human factor, then why all this noise about a beginning? The concept of beginnings is as human as the concept of relativity.

Relativity is not introducing a human factor.

Relativity works just fine without any humans being involved... for example, it effects the lifetime of certain very fast moving particles in the atmosphere (i.e. they travel farther then they should because the time they experience is different then the time experienced by the atmosphere). We talk about the "observer" in Relativity, but it is a bit misleading. Relativity is a real mathematical effect.

But there is something quite strange with Quantum Physics, which is the other part of Modern Physics. In Quantum Physics the "observer" effect the behavior of what is being observed. This is very strange and nearly impossible to understand-- even for people who have studied it for years. But, again it is the only way to explain the observations and results of experiments that scientists have made.

But don't confuse the two. In Relativity (which is the branch of Physics that deals with the passage of time) the observer is just an observer. The frame of reference is what is important and there is nothing magic about what is being observed or not (i.e. the same thing will happen whether it is being observed or not).

To make it completely clear... time is relative whether it is being observed or not.

Quantum Mechanics is quite weird. Under Quantum mechanics there is some "magical" (and I use this word to signify that it goes against all logic) connection between observer and what is being observed. These effects are easy to see in the laboratory... but they always involved very small (i.e. subatomic) particals.

But in the discussion on this thread so far, only Relativity has been applicable.