Big Bang Theory

[et's daddy]

here is what i would like to address

It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

ive got to say it seems a bit of a stretch to me that everything in the universe was once the size of a few millimeters

let me see if this is a good example .... if not please let me know, i want to be correct

you take a sponge that is 1 cubic meter .. by whatever means it takes you squish the sponge down to one square centimeter (yes i know it may not be physically possible but please bear with me) .... the squished sponge is represents the universe pre-big bang .... when the sponge is released and goes back to its larger size it represents the current universe

is that fair ?

still must say it seems hard to wrap my mind around ..... dont have a better idea of the universe .. but this one is tough

[ninjadude]

Google is your friend. There are entire libraries on the subject. A study of Physics and Astronomy would also help. Otherwise the terms, forces, and properties of the known universe that are used in the explanation won't make any sense. Sure I could dumb it down. I'm sure there are lots of places on the web that show that. But then we have the KennyB's of the world to point out they dumbed down versions don't really completely describe the theory. There are some pretty amazing things in it.

[Guest]

Google is your friend. There are entire libraries on the subject. A study of Physics and Astronomy would also help. Otherwise the terms, forces, and properties of the known universe that are used in the explanation won't make any sense. Sure I could dumb it down. I'm sure there are lots of places on the web that show that. But then we have the KennyB's of the world to point out they dumbed down versions don't really completely describe the theory. There are some pretty amazing things in it.

Its the best we currently have - but it has some real flaws. I think a new big bang theory will look quite different to the current model. Infact I think the whole of physics/cosmology is due for a radical shake up.

Br Cornelius

[ninjadude]

Its the best we currently have - but it has some real flaws. I think a new big bang theory will look quite different to the current model. Infact I think the whole of physics/cosmology is due for a radical shake up.

What flaws? It does have unanswered questions. There are other theories but non have much acceptance. I didn't know physics or cosmology had a "due" date. As with all sciences they change as new information is revealed. The UHC will undoubtedly discover the Higgs bosun and cosmology and physics will go from there forward. It is unlikely to have any "radical" shake up. The information we have in physics and even a lot of cosmology is well supported with experimental evidence.

[KennyB]

here is what i would like to address

ive got to say it seems a bit of a stretch to me that everything in the universe was once the size of a few millimeters

let me see if this is a good example .... if not please let me know, i want to be correct

you take a sponge that is 1 cubic meter .. by whatever means it takes you squish the sponge down to one square centimeter (yes i know it may not be physically possible but please bear with me) .... the squished sponge is represents the universe pre-big bang .... when the sponge is released and goes back to its larger size it represents the current universe

is that fair ?

still must say it seems hard to wrap my mind around ..... dont have a better idea of the universe .. but this one is tough

The 'big bang theory' is just that, a theory, a guess. The same with all the other theories of the beginning. They're all guesses. Not saying there's anything wrong with that. Better to guess than admit you don't know. KennyB

[et's daddy]

Google is your friend.

so instead of trying to help and educate people you choose to ridicule ..... nice ...... of course it doesnt really show that you know any more then anyone else

[jaylemurph]

so instead of trying to help and educate people you choose to ridicule ..... nice ...... of course it doesnt really show that you know any more then anyone else

So... just because *you* don't understand a theory, it has flaws?

I can almost respect the sort of massive solipsistic egotism that implies -- but does that mean that if *I* think you're a bit dim, it must be true?

--Jaylemurph

[et's daddy]

So... just because *you* don't understand a theory, it has flaws?

I can almost respect the sort of massive solipsistic egotism that implies -- but does that mean that if *I* think you're a bit dim, it must be true?

--Jaylemurph

and that adds to the conversation exactly how?

i just love it when people post merely to see their words on the screen

all these self proclaimed intellectuals and no one has anything truly useful to add?

[Mattshark]

The 'big bang theory' is just that, a theory, a guess. The same with all the other theories of the beginning. They're all guesses. Not saying there's anything wrong with that. Better to guess than admit you don't know. KennyB

Actually boy, science does admit when it doesn't know and since it has been factually shown to you that a theory is not a guess I believe you are merely trolling.

[jaylemurph]

and that adds to the conversation exactly how?

Actually, it does. It's called reductio ad absurdum: using exactly the same premise and analogy you use, I instead come to a perfectly logical but patently absurd result.

Or maybe it *isn't* an absurd result and I'm giving you far too much credit in assuming you're not not very bright. I don't know, but if you're going to insist upon your not-brightness, far be it from me to proclaim the contrary.

In any case, for a substantial amount of time this has been a recognized technique, and usually suggests the speaker's veiled contempt of the original point made -- i. e., that your lack of understanding somehow constitutes the failure of a widely-supported theory in physics and cosmology, despite there being absolutely no necessary connexion between the two.

i just love it when people post merely to see their words on the screen

And I equally love it when people publicly parade* their ignorance and try to pawn it off on other people as some manner of intellectual achievement. But that's me: Different Strokes for Different Folks and whatnot.

all these self proclaimed intellectuals and no one has anything truly useful to add?

You first.

--Jaylemurph

*Although, to be fair, I think that's somewhat of an oxymoron: I'm not sure one can privately parade things.

[tinieblas]

I personally love it when some people claim to be holding the Golden Chalace and Panacaea of All Things trying to take advantage of what they percieve to be the ignorance of the non-scientifically minded. If you talk to any real experts in cosmatology and astrophysics they will give you a completely different understanding than folks who post on here do.

We can argue in cirles about whose frontal lobe is the biggest but at the end of the day, it's easier to respect someone who admits to not knowing the answers than someone who claims to know the unknowable.

[Guest]

What flaws? It does have unanswered questions. There are other theories but non have much acceptance. I didn't know physics or cosmology had a "due" date. As with all sciences they change as new information is revealed. The UHC will undoubtedly discover the Higgs bosun and cosmology and physics will go from there forward. It is unlikely to have any "radical" shake up. The information we have in physics and even a lot of cosmology is well supported with experimental evidence.

I believe they will not find the Higgs Bosun and this will lead to many ideas to be abandoned. I also believe they will not find dark matter/energy. I also believe they will find that electricity is the source of gravity. On all this I will happily admit I am wrong - but not until there is a lot more evidence in.

The problem with the big bang is that it works back from current thinking,and if any part of current thinking is shown to be unsubstantiated, then the Big Bang needs modification. This is all very good in my eyes and I see lots of interesting developments coming out of the failure to find the Higg.

Br Cornelius

[lightly]

As one who knows almost nothing about everything... the Big Bang makes no sense to me. Even tho i do like Hawking... wasn't it he who came up with the idea?? or am i wrong again??? I can't understand how all matter/energy and space/time ? was contained in an infinitely small whatchamacallit . What lay outside of 'that' whatchamacallit ? How did all matter/energy and space/time ? get into 'that' whatchamacallit ? Did it somehow condense in a Big Shrink? Is it cyclical? The universe is expanding into WHAT? non space? Can Nothing exist? Doesn't the big bang theory claim that matter/energy AND space/time itself is expanding from the infinitely small whatchamacallit? .

[+HerNibs]

Googled - Source - yeah, it's Wiki, deal with it

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago[3][4]), and continues to expand to this day.

More Googling

Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions

There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. 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. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory

What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.

* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.

* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

Nibs

Edited December 31, 2009 by HerNibs

[ninjadude]

The 'big bang theory' is just that, a theory, a guess. The same with all the other theories of the beginning. They're all guesses. Not saying there's anything wrong with that. Better to guess than admit you don't know. KennyB

They are not guesses. This has been pointed out to you ad naseum. Please educate yourself.

[ninjadude]

so instead of trying to help and educate people you choose to ridicule ..... nice ...... of course it doesnt really show that you know any more then anyone else

Google is your friend. That's not ridicule. That's a fact. A great wealth of information both good and bad can be found. If you're looking for education on a forum, I'd submit you're looking in the wrong place. At best, you may get some ideas, recommendations and links to educational sources. Even interesting discussion and ridicule. I've studied physics and astronomy in the college level. Have you?

Edited December 31, 2009 by ninjadude

[ninjadude]

I believe they will not find the Higgs Bosun and this will lead to many ideas to be abandoned. I also believe they will not find dark matter/energy. I also believe they will find that electricity is the source of gravity. On all this I will happily admit I am wrong - but not until there is a lot more evidence in.

The problem with the big bang is that it works back from current thinking,and if any part of current thinking is shown to be unsubstantiated, then the Big Bang needs modification. This is all very good in my eyes and I see lots of interesting developments coming out of the failure to find the Higg.

But see, they are not just shooting in the dark. well actually they are but theoretically they are not. What I mean is that Higgs almost certainly exists and there is even a high probability 80-90% of its exact energy forecasted. They're not spending all that money to scatter across the energy spectrum. I look on it as confirming what we already highly suspect will be there but requires high energies and exacting conditions to verify. The world will not change somehow overnight when it is verified.

Dark Energy/dark matter, I myself wonder about as well. But they have experiments that seem to show it. I have ignorance about that. Electricity as the source of gravity? never gonna happen. It's true of all theories that when new facts emerge, they are modified.

[Black Hound]

: I like the notion of the Big Bang creating everything. Explains a lot more than most ministers can about creation.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Graveyard Hound

[et's daddy]

I've studied physics and astronomy in the college level. Have you?

no i havent .... and since you have it would seem you are here to discuss .... im interested in trying to discuss the big bang with what little knowledge i have ... are you ?

it just doesnt make sense to me .... seems like they (Hawking and the others) are just trying to basically say it was magic .... i read over nibs post explaining it .. and while i understand what it said im just not sure how they came up with these ideas and why it is so widely accepted basically as fact

honestly it really seems ludicrous to me .... there was nothing ... then there was all we have now but it was in a tiny ball .... now the ball has expanded into what we have today and it is still expanding .... sorry it just seems like poor sci-fi to me

right now there is nothing on my kitchen table .... tomorrow there may be a tiny expanding universe on it ? ...... im sure when i say it i sound like a lunatic ... but when Hawking says it he's a genius

[jaylemurph]

honestly it really seems ludicrous to me .... there was nothing ... then there was all we have now but it was in a tiny ball .... now the ball has expanded into what we have today and it is still expanding .... sorry it just seems like poor sci-fi to me

Pointing out you're wrong *is* part of educating people, at least some people. As I pointed out, your lack of comprehension has nothing to do with the veracity of the theory. There is no connexion between the two things. It's like saying "a barn is red, therefore Neptune is the eighth planet from the sun."

--Jaylemurph

[et's daddy]

Pointing out you're wrong *is* part of educating people, at least some people. As I pointed out, your lack of comprehension has nothing to do with the veracity of the theory. There is no connexion between the two things. It's like saying "a barn is red, therefore Neptune is the eighth planet from the sun."

--Jaylemurph

with over 7,000 posts have you ever added anything useful to a thread ? .... certainly not to this one

so enlighten me ... just where is it that i am wrong ? .... Hawking and his buddies have a story of sci-fi that you take as gospel and you cant believe everyone is not a sheep to the idea like you ?

please reply so you can tell me what a moron i am for not buying into the fantasy and further my education ..... hell you should put out educational videos .. you could just tell everyone what morons they are .. think how better the world would be

[sinewave]

That is Higgs Boson BTW. Bosun was probably just a typo.

[sinewave]

Google is your friend. That's not ridicule. That's a fact. A great wealth of information both good and bad can be found. If you're looking for education on a forum, I'd submit you're looking in the wrong place. At best, you may get some ideas, recommendations and links to educational sources. Even interesting discussion and ridicule. I've studied physics and astronomy in the college level. Have you?

Urging someone on to self enlightenment should be taken as a gesture of kindness.

[+HerNibs]

What part are you having issue with?

B

ig Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions

There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory

What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.

* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.

* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

Sources for above in my previous post.

More info

Which part are you having a hard time wrapping your head around?

Nibs

[et's daddy]

Which part are you having a hard time wrapping your head around?

1. first there was nothing

2. after nothing the entire universe as we know it was contained in a little ball

3. the universe is expanding inside this ball and outside this ball is still nothing

thats good for know

seriously, none of this makes you scratch your head in disbelief ?